Abstract

PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. W. Richards and E. A. Parks, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 971 (1971).
  2. H. Helson, J. Exptl. Psychol. 23, 439 (1938).
  3. E. H. Land, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (U.S.) 45, 115 (1959); 45, 636 (1959).
  4. A more sophisticated model would calculate the effective illuminant for each sample independently, using a weighting function that decreases as the distance from the sample decreases. A simpler and undoubtedly a sufficiently accurate approximation, however, would be to consider only the immediate neighbors of the sample, plus the sample itself.
  5. J. von Kries, Arch. Anat. Phyysiol. (Leipzig, Physiol. Abt.) 2, 503 (1878).
  6. Note that MacAdam's nonlinear hypothesis for chromatic adaptation also requires different nonlinearities for each channel [D. L. MacAdam, Vision Res. 1, 9 (1961)]. MacAdam's model differs from the present one by imposing the nonlinearity upon the tristimulus values, rather than upon the von Kries coefficients directly. If the threshold constant a is omitted from MacAdam's model, and if the nonlinearity is assumed to be the same for both adaptations, then both models become formally equivalent, except in the method used to calculate the exponents Pi.
  7. T. N. Wiesel and D. H. Hubel, J. Neurophysiol. 29, 1115 (1966). (See particularly Figs. 2, 6, 10, and 15.)

1971 (1)

W. Richards and E. A. Parks, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 971 (1971).

1966 (1)

T. N. Wiesel and D. H. Hubel, J. Neurophysiol. 29, 1115 (1966). (See particularly Figs. 2, 6, 10, and 15.)

1961 (1)

Note that MacAdam's nonlinear hypothesis for chromatic adaptation also requires different nonlinearities for each channel [D. L. MacAdam, Vision Res. 1, 9 (1961)]. MacAdam's model differs from the present one by imposing the nonlinearity upon the tristimulus values, rather than upon the von Kries coefficients directly. If the threshold constant a is omitted from MacAdam's model, and if the nonlinearity is assumed to be the same for both adaptations, then both models become formally equivalent, except in the method used to calculate the exponents Pi.

1959 (1)

E. H. Land, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (U.S.) 45, 115 (1959); 45, 636 (1959).

1938 (1)

H. Helson, J. Exptl. Psychol. 23, 439 (1938).

1878 (1)

J. von Kries, Arch. Anat. Phyysiol. (Leipzig, Physiol. Abt.) 2, 503 (1878).

Helson, H.

H. Helson, J. Exptl. Psychol. 23, 439 (1938).

Hubel, D. H.

T. N. Wiesel and D. H. Hubel, J. Neurophysiol. 29, 1115 (1966). (See particularly Figs. 2, 6, 10, and 15.)

Land, E. H.

E. H. Land, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (U.S.) 45, 115 (1959); 45, 636 (1959).

MacAdam, D. L.

Note that MacAdam's nonlinear hypothesis for chromatic adaptation also requires different nonlinearities for each channel [D. L. MacAdam, Vision Res. 1, 9 (1961)]. MacAdam's model differs from the present one by imposing the nonlinearity upon the tristimulus values, rather than upon the von Kries coefficients directly. If the threshold constant a is omitted from MacAdam's model, and if the nonlinearity is assumed to be the same for both adaptations, then both models become formally equivalent, except in the method used to calculate the exponents Pi.

Parks, E. A.

W. Richards and E. A. Parks, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 971 (1971).

Richards, W.

W. Richards and E. A. Parks, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 971 (1971).

von Kries, J.

J. von Kries, Arch. Anat. Phyysiol. (Leipzig, Physiol. Abt.) 2, 503 (1878).

Wiesel, T. N.

T. N. Wiesel and D. H. Hubel, J. Neurophysiol. 29, 1115 (1966). (See particularly Figs. 2, 6, 10, and 15.)

Other (7)

W. Richards and E. A. Parks, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 971 (1971).

H. Helson, J. Exptl. Psychol. 23, 439 (1938).

E. H. Land, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (U.S.) 45, 115 (1959); 45, 636 (1959).

A more sophisticated model would calculate the effective illuminant for each sample independently, using a weighting function that decreases as the distance from the sample decreases. A simpler and undoubtedly a sufficiently accurate approximation, however, would be to consider only the immediate neighbors of the sample, plus the sample itself.

J. von Kries, Arch. Anat. Phyysiol. (Leipzig, Physiol. Abt.) 2, 503 (1878).

Note that MacAdam's nonlinear hypothesis for chromatic adaptation also requires different nonlinearities for each channel [D. L. MacAdam, Vision Res. 1, 9 (1961)]. MacAdam's model differs from the present one by imposing the nonlinearity upon the tristimulus values, rather than upon the von Kries coefficients directly. If the threshold constant a is omitted from MacAdam's model, and if the nonlinearity is assumed to be the same for both adaptations, then both models become formally equivalent, except in the method used to calculate the exponents Pi.

T. N. Wiesel and D. H. Hubel, J. Neurophysiol. 29, 1115 (1966). (See particularly Figs. 2, 6, 10, and 15.)

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.