When is a background equivalent? Sparse chromatic context revisited

E Brenner*, FW Cornelissen

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

    15 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Jenness and Shevell (Vision Res 1995,35:797-805) reported that a red background with white dots scattered on it has a different influence on a target's apparent colour than an equivalent uniform background. We show that this finding depends on what one considers an equivalent background. Jenness and Shevell averaged the chromaticity and luminance of the background with the dots, and 'superimposed' the target onto this new background. This changed the luminance and chromaticity of both the target and the surround. We show that if only the surround is changed, it is irrelevant whether the latter is red with white dots scattered over it, or a uniform field with the same space averaged chromaticity and luminance. Our findings are consistent with a local contrast mechanism that has a limited spatial resolution. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1789-1793
    Number of pages5
    JournalVision Research
    Volume38
    Issue number12
    Publication statusPublished - Jun-1998

    Keywords

    • colour appearance
    • chromatic induction
    • adaptation
    • colour constancy
    • SIMULTANEOUS COLOR CONSTANCY
    • RETINEX THEORY
    • VISION
    • ADAPTATION
    • CONTRAST
    • INFORMATION
    • APPEARANCE
    • MECHANISMS
    • BRIGHTNESS
    • INDUCTION

    Cite this