Abstract

<p>The <i>bril</i> scale, obtained from extensive experimental data by Hanes, represents an attempt to establish a subjective scale of brightness by the determination of particular luminances which produce specific ratios of brightness. This scale, like other scales obtained from fractionation data, necessarily assumes a one-to-one correspondence between intensity of stimulus and magnitude of response—an assumption in conflict with known facts regarding adaptation.</p><p>It is shown that the reformulation of the Fechner law proposed several years ago, aided by results obtained from rating-scale techniques, can predict quantitatively all of the data used for the construction of the bril scale. Since this theoretical treatment takes explicit account of adaptation, it follows that each of the ratios determined by fractionation techniques has meaning by itself, but that the combination of these ratios into a scale of wide range is not justified. The fallacy involved in such combination is the assumption that a given stimulus is psychologically equivalent to itself when it is presented under different conditions, and, therefore, under different states of adaptation.</p>

PDF Article

References

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Citation lists with outbound citation links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription