Color vision

MAR 01, 1966

Correspondence between physical stimulus (frequency, intensity, complexity) and sensation (hue, brightness, saturation) is neither obvious nor simple. Many theories offer explanations, but none has been entirely satisfactory. Now it appears that all of them have relevance, and color phenomena are being understood.

DOI: 10.1063/1.3048100

Saul M. Luria

PHYSICISTS, PSYCHOLOGISTS, PHYSIOLOGISTS and artists—not to mention paint manufacturers—have all played substantial roles in the study of color and color vision. Many disparate points of view have resulted in great cross fertilization but, not surprisingly, some confusion as well. One confusion is the dichotomy of physical stimulus and sensation, that is, color perception. Several different theories have attempted to explain the relation between the two, the two major ones being those called “trichromatic” and “opponent‐process.” Meanwhile observable facts have been determined by many types of measurement: color mixing, wavelength discrimination, spectral sensitivity and studies of color blindness. We do not know all the answers yet, but apparently all the major theories have their own validities at different levels of perception.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

1. V. Ronchi, Optics: The Science of Vision (New York University Press, New York, 1957) pp. 16, 17.
2. H. Helson, Am. J. Psychol. 60, 1 (1947).https://doi.org/AJPCAA
3. E. H. Land, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 45, 115; 636 (1959).https://doi.org/PNASA6
4. G. Walls, Psychol. Bull. 57, 29 (1960).https://doi.org/PSBUAI
5. J. A. S. Kinney, Vision Res. 2, 503 (1962); https://doi.org/VISRAM
J. A. S. Kinney, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 55, 731 (1965).https://doi.org/JOSAAH
6. L. M. Hurvich, D. Jameson, Psychol. Rev. 64, 384 (1957).https://doi.org/PSRVAX
7. F. H. C. Marriott in The Eye, vol. 2 (Hugh Davson, ed.) Academic Press, New York, 1962) p. 282.
8. H. Hartridge, Recent Advances in the Physiology of Vision (The Blakiston Co., Philadelphia, 1950) p. 260.
9. D. B. Judd, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 39, 252 (1949).https://doi.org/JOSAAH
10. F. L. Dimmick, M. R. Hubbard, Am. J. Psychol. 52, 242; 348 (1939).https://doi.org/AJPCAA
11. D. B. Judd, Doc. Ophthal. 3, 251 (1949).https://doi.org/DOOPAA
12. W. S. Stiles, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 45, 100 (1959).https://doi.org/PNASA6
13. R. Granit, Sensory Mechanisms of the Retina (Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1947), p. 310f.
14. J. A. Sechzer and J. L. Brown, Science 144, 427 (1964). https://doi.org/SCIEAS
15. G. Svaetichin, Acta Physiol. Scand. 39 (Suppl. 134) 17 (1956).https://doi.org/APSCAX
16. H. G. Wagner, E. F. MacNichol, M. L. Wolbarsht, J. Gen. Physiol. 43 (part 2), 45 (1960).https://doi.org/JGPLAD
17. R. DeValois, J. Gen. Physiol. 43 (part 2), 115 (1960).https://doi.org/JGPLAD
18. W. B. Marks, W. H. Dobelle, E. F. MacNichol, Science 143, 1181 (1964).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
19. P. K. Brown, G. Wald, Science 144, 145 (1964).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
20. V. O. Andersen, B. Buchmann, M. A. Lennox‐Buchthal, Vision Res. 2, 295 (1962).https://doi.org/VISRAM
21. W. A. H. Rushton, J. Physiol. 168, 345 (1963);
176, 24;
H. Ripps, R. A. Weale, Vision Res. 3, 531 (1963). https://doi.org/VISRAM
22. W. D. Wright, Trans. Opt. Soc. (London) 30, 141 (1928–29).
23. F. H. G. Pitt, Med. Res. Council Spec. Report, Series No. 200 (1935).
24. W. D. Wright, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 42, 509 (1952).https://doi.org/JOSAAH
25. G. Svaetichin, E. F. MacNichol, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 74, 385 (1958).https://doi.org/ANYAA9

More about the Authors

Saul M. Luria. US Naval Submarine Medical Center, New London, Connecticut.