The Munker–White Effect and Chromatic Induction Share Similar Nonlinear Response Properties

Abstract

The brightness or color appearance of a region may be altered by the presence of a pattern surrounding it in the visual field. The Munker-White effect (grating surround) and brightness or color induction from concentric annuli ('bull's-eye' surround) are two examples. We examined whether these two phenomena share similar properties. In the asymmetric matching experiment, the task of an observer was to adjust the appearance of a matching patch to match the appearance of a test patch embedded in one of the two types (square wave grating or concentric annuli) of inducing surrounds (inducers). The inducer modulated in one of three color directions (isochromatic: +/-(L + M + S) and isoluminance: +/-(L - M) or +/-S). Each inducer type and color direction had two opposing phases and four contrast levels. The results show that the induced appearance shift increases as a power function of the inducer contrast, regardless of the spatial configuration of the inducer. Further analysis showed that a sensitivity modulation model of lateral interaction could explain both induction effects.

Large enhancement of simultaneous color contrast by white flanking contours

“…Our illusion under the white-contour condition using the red-cyan color configuration, was as strong as the Monnier–Shevell illusion. The critical difference between those previous studies using L–M color 7 , 28 and our stimuli is the spatial frequency of the stimuli. The typical spatial width used in those studies was wider (0.16°–0.26°) than ours (0.03°) 7 , 28 , 30 .…”

“…The critical difference between those previous studies using L–M color 7 , 28 and our stimuli is the spatial frequency of the stimuli. The typical spatial width used in those studies was wider (0.16°–0.26°) than ours (0.03°) 7 , 28 , 30 . It is known that there is a poor spatial resolution for S-cone stimuli (8 cycle per degree, cpd), compared to L–M cone stimuli (20 cpd) and luminance stimuli (50 cpd) 31 , 32 .…”

“…Monnier and Shevell showed that color shifts were observed only for the S-cone color direction 25 , 29 , while other studies have found that the effect also occurred along the L–M cone color direction but with smaller illusory effects 7 , 28 . Our illusion under the white-contour condition using the red-cyan color configuration, was as strong as the Monnier–Shevell illusion.…”

“…The Monnier–Shevell illusion was reported as color shifts occurring along the short-wavelength cone (S cone) direction 27 . There were reports showing the same illusions along red-cyan colors (long to medium wavelength cone direction; L–M cone), but the magnitude of these effects was smaller 7 , 28 . Considering that classical color assimilation and contrast emerges across all hues 3 , it is questionable that synergistic color shifts are constrained along the S cone axis.…”

What Fechner could not do: Separating perceptual encoding and decoding with difference scaling

“… Vincent (2017) reported similar variation in effect magnitude as a function of target luminance in a matching paradigm. Rather than varying the target luminance Lin, Chen, and Chien (2010) varied the contrast of the grating while keeping target luminance constant. They found match contrast decreasing with increasing surround contrast, which could be in line with the same overall shapes of brightness scales described here: lower contrast surrounds would compress the domain of encoding functions, reducing the intermediate range of luminance values where effect magnitude is maximal.…”