The response criterion, the stimulus configuration, and the relationship between brightness contrast and brightness constancy

Haimson, Barry R.

doi:10.3758/bf03203954

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our lightness data from Condition 3 (haploscopic viewing) are compared with Jameson and Hurvich's (1961) lightness data in Figure 2, with our Munsell data in Figure 3, and with our brightness data in Figure 4. DISCUSSION Masuda (1971) and Haimson (1974) also failed to find negative slopes in very close replications of Jameson and Hurvich's (1961) experiment. Arend and Goldstein (in press), using state-of-the-art computer graphics, reported near-perfect lightness constancy, but found that brightness judgments were harder and far from constant, going in the direction reported here (luminance matching).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

The ratio principle holds over a million-to-one range of illumination

Jacobsen

Gilchrist

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A pattern of five gray squares ranging from white to black was presented to observers at four levels of illumination, spanning a range of six log units. This replicated an earlier experiment by Jameson and Hurvich (1961) in which a 1.1-log-unit range was used. Three measures of perception were used: (1) a "lightness" measure consisting of a square of variable luminance surrounded by a bright white field (after Jameson & Hurvich), (2) a Munsell chart, and (3) a "brightness" measure consisting of a square of variable luminance surrounded by complete darkness (after Heinemann, 1955; Leibowitz, Mote, & Thurlow, 1953;and Leibowitz, Myers, & Chinetti, 1955). The first two measures yielded the same results-a very high degree of constancy over the entire range. No diverging or negative functions were found. The brightness measure yielded almost no constancy, but did yield approximate luminance matching. It is argued that these results, together with those of three other published studies, indicate that the concept of intensity dependence is not valid. It is also suggested that the term "brightness constancy" is a misnomer, since brightness varies with illumination.In 1948, Wallach published a now classic set of experiments in which he showed that the perceived shade of gray of a surface depends not on its luminance (the absolute amount of light it reflects), but on the ratio between its luminance and the luminance of the surrounding region. He showed that a disk of constant luminance could be made to appear as any shade between white and black simply by varying the luminance of a surrounding annulus. In addition, he offered quantitative results showing that when observers are presented with two such disk! annulus displays on opposite sides of a darkened room, and asked to adjust the luminance of one disk (the comparison) until it appears the same shade of gray as the other (standard) disk, they will actually set the luminance of the comparison disk to almost the same ratio with the luminance of its annulus as that of the standard disk in relation to its annulus, even though this may require that the luminance of the comparison disk be set as much as eight times that of the standard.These experiments were important because they offered a simple explanation of lightness constancy under changing illumination that bypassed Helmholtz's (1867/1962) less operational cognitive account. They further suggested the radical possibility that the visual system might have no need at all for absolute luminance levels-that lightness perception might be determined rather simply by relative amounts of light.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 72%

The ratio principle holds over a million-to-one range of illumination

Jacobsen

Gilchrist

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the publication of Jameson and Hurvich (1961) , at least four failures to replicate their findings have been reported ( Flock & Noguchi, 1970 ; Haimson, 1974 ; Jacobsen & Gilchrist, 1988 ; Noguchi & Masuda, 1971 ; for a detailed account on the matter, see Gilchrist, 2006 ; for another prospective on the failures, see Taya, 1990 ). Moreover, Arend and Spehar (1993) , in an experiment aimed at studying the effects of illumination on lightness and brightness, found that lightness matching performed by their observers was illuminance independent, even when local luminance contrasts at a target’s edge were not kept constant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Physical Illumination on Lightness Perception in Simultaneous Contrast Displays

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments investigated the role of physical illumination on lightness perception in simultaneous lightness contrast (SLC). Four configurations were employed: the classic textbook version of the illusion and three configurations that produced either enhanced or reduced SLC. Experiment 1 tested the effect of ambient illumination on lightness perception. It simulated very dark environmental conditions that nevertheless still allowed perception of different shades of gray. Experiment 2 tested the effect of the intensity of Gelb lighting on lightness perception. Experiment 3 presented two conditions that integrated illumination conditions from Experiments 1 and 2. Our results demonstrated an illumination effect on both lightness matching and perceived SLC contrast: As the intensity of illumination increased, the target on the black background appeared lighter, while the target on the white background was little affected. We hypothesize the existence of two illumination ranges that affect lightness perception differently: low and normal. In the low range, the SLC contrast was reduced and targets appeared darker. In the normal range, the SLC contrast and lightness matchings for each background were little changed across illumination intensities.

show abstract

“…We also cited three other exact replications of the Jameson and Hurvich study (Flock & Noguchi, 1970;Haimson, 1974;Noguchi & Masuda, 1971), all of which failed to find any negative functions. The studies that Heinemann claims agree with Jameson and Hurvich- Helson (1943) and Heinemann (1955)-were merely similar, not replications, and the results match those of Jameson and Hurvich only in the barest way.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%