Abstract

Several experiments reveal that judgments of lightness and brightness of an achromatic surface depend, in part, on the luminances of other surfaces perceived to share the same depth plane, even if the surfaces are well separated on the retina. Two Mondrians, simulated on a CRT, were viewed through a haploscope. The more highly illuminated Mondrian contained a comparison patch and appeared nearer than the more dimly illuminated Mondrian, which contained the test patch. By independently varying the disparity of the test patch, observers could make the test patch appear to be in the depth plane of either the dimly or the highly illuminated Mondrian. Observers set the luminance of the test patch to match that of the comparison patch. The test was set as high as 15% more luminous when it was perceived in the depth plane of the highly illuminated rather than the dimly illuminated Mondrian. Both brightness and lightness judgments were affected by the perceived depth of the test, although the lightness judgments of inexperienced observers sometimes were dominated by local-contrast matching.

© 1993 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. E. Hering, Outlines of a Theory of the Light Sense (transl. L. M. Hurvich, D. Jameson) (Harvard U. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1964).
  2. A. Gilchrist, “Perceived lightness depends on perceived spatial arrangement,” Science 195, 185–187 (1977).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “The ratio principle holds over a million-to-one range of illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 1–6 (1988).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. H. Wallach, “Brightness constancy and the nature of achromatic colors,”J. Exp. Psychol. 38, 310–324 (1948).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. E. Heinemann “Simultaneous brightness induction as a function of inducing- and test-field luminances,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 89–96 (1955).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. R. C. Reid, R. M. Shapley, “Non-local effects in the perception of brightness: Psychophysics and neurophysiology,” in Seeing Contour and Colour, J. J. Kulikowski, C. M. Dickinson, I. J. Murray, eds. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1989).
  7. Perceived brightness and perceived lightness in a three-dimensional scene can be derived from local contrast of retinally adjacent coplanar surfaces that share an illuminant (see Ref. 8).
  8. J. A. Schirillo, A. Reeves, L. Arend, “Perceived lightness, but not brightness, of achromatic surfaces depends on perceived depth information,” Percept. Psychophys. 48, 82–90 (1990).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. J. Beck, Surface Color Perception (Cornell U. Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1972).
  10. R. Evans, “Variables of perceived color,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. 54, 1467–1474 (1964).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. L. Arend, R. Goldstein, “Simultaneous constancy, lightness, and brightness,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 2281–2285 (1987).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. W. Gogel, D. Mershon, “Depth adjacency in simultaneous contrast,” Percept. Psychophys. 5, 13–17 (1969).
    [Crossref]
  13. L. Sewall, B. Wooten, “Stimulus determinants of achromatic constancy,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 8, 1794–1809 (1991).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. In a related paradigm, L. Kardos, “Ding und schatten,” Z. Psychol. 23,(1934), claimed that surface lightness was determined by the illumination in a given depth plane. He reduced the illumination falling upon a light-gray test to make the luminance of the test approximately equal to that of a highly illuminated dark-gray coplanar surround. This caused the test both to appear dark-gray and to be under the same high illumination as its coplanar surround. Reducing the overall illumination falling upon the light-gray test and the dark-gray surround in a separate depth plane preserved the lighter test. Although Kardos used depth to segment multiple illuminations within a scene and showed that coplanar surfaces with equal luminance appear to have both equal reflectance and equal illumination, he did not derive a coplanar rule.
  15. The two displays of Arend and Goldstein10“were identical paper arrays illuminated by different sources.” Their instructions to “adjust the test patch to look as if it were cut from the same piece of paper” makes explicit to the observer that the test and comparison patches were under different illuminants. The current instructions to create the “same shade of gray” do not demand that the observer infer a different level of illumination for the test and comparison. Jacobsen and Gilchrist (Ref. 3 and Ref. 16) also obtained lightness judgments by having observers match the “shade of gray.”
  16. A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “Hess and Pretori revisited: resolution of some old contradictions,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 7–16 (1988).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Parenthetically, studies by W. Kohler, “Aus der anthropoidenstation auf teneriffa. II. Optische untersuchungen am schimpansen und am haushuhn,” Abh. Preuss Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. K. no. 3 (1915); N. Locke, “Color constancy in the rhesus monkey and in man,” Arch. Psychol. 135, 5–38 (1935); and R. Thouless, “Phenomenal regression to the real object. I,” J. Psychol. 21, 23–43 (1931), have reported that children, animals, and untrained observers favor lightness matches over brightness matches.
  18. Y. Hsia, “Whiteness constancy as a function of difference in illumination,” Arch. Psychol. 284, 5–63 (1943).
  19. H. N. Leibowitz, N. A. Myers, P. Chinetti, “The role of simultaneous contrast in brightness constancy,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 15–18 (1955).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Gibbs and Lawson23 showed that a small test disparity affected brightness judgments by approximately 10%, whereas addition of disparity to the test did not increase the effect.
  21. L. Arend, B. Spehar, “Lightness, brightness, and brightness contrast I. Illuminance variation,” Percept. Psycho-phys. (to be published).
  22. L. Arend, B. Spehar, “Lightness, brightness, and brightness contrast II. Reflectance variation,” submitted to Percept. Psychophys.
  23. T. Gibbs, R. Lawson, “Simultaneous brightness contrast in stereoscopic space,” Vision Res. 14, 983–987 (1974).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Only 40 of Gogel and Mershon’s12 60 observers reported the effect of depth separation on lightness.
  25. Observers did not report that the test appeared in a film mode of perception (Ref. 26) when it was viewed in a hole within the far Mondrian.
  26. D. Katz, The World of Color (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, London, 1911).
  27. D. Mershon, W. Gogel, “Effect of stereoscopic cues on perceived whiteness,” Am. J. Psychol. 83, 55–67 (1970).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Mershon and Gogel27 reported a maximum perceived difference of 0.7/ Munsell step when the far disk was 44% farther than the near disk. Their hypothesis of increased neural uncoupling with increasing depth implies that with sufficient separation, induction effects would disappear altogether. In the current experiment the far Mondrian was 19% farther than the test patch that was perceived in the near plane.
  29. This altered the perceived brightness of the immediate surround of the test and comparison. R. Shapley, R. Reid, “Contrast and assimilation in the perception of brightness,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 82, 5983–5986 (1985).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  30. T. Oyama, “Stimulus determinants of brightness constancy and the perception of illumination,” Jpn. Psychol. Res. 10, 146–155 (1968).
  31. The fact that such a restricted range is sufficient suggests that many natural scenes potentially contain multiple levels of illumination. For example, in more than 100 natural outdoor scenes the average contrast is approximately 160:1,34 while luminance ratios greater than 60:1 tend to be perceived as changes in illumination instead of as changes in lightness (Refs. 32 and 33 below).
  32. H. Helson, “Some factors and implications of color constancy,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. 33, 555–567 (1943).
    [Crossref]
  33. D. Jameson, L. Hurvich, “Complexities of perceived brightness,” Science 133, 174–179 (1961).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  34. L. Jones, H. Condit, “The brightness scale of exterior scenes and the computation of correct photographic exposure,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. 31, 651–678 (1941).
    [Crossref]
  35. G. Buchsbaum, “A spatial processor model for object colour perception,”J. Franklin Inst. 310, 1–26 (1980).
    [Crossref]
  36. E. Land, J. McCann, “Lightness and retinex theory,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 1–11 (1971).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  37. B. Horn, “Determining lightness from an image,” Comput. Graphics Image Process. 3, 277–299 (1974).
    [Crossref]
  38. D. Marr, E. Hildereth, “Theory of edge detection,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 207, 187–217 (1980).
    [Crossref]
  39. A. Gilchrist, S. Delman, A. Jacobsen, “The classification and integration of edges as critical to the perception of reflectance and illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 425–436 (1983).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  40. A. Gilchrist, “The perception of surface whites and blacks,” Sci. Am. 24, 88–97 (1979).
  41. C. Brice, C. Fenneman, “Scene analysis using regions,” Artif. Intell. 1, 205–226 (1970).
    [Crossref]
  42. R. Evans, J. Klute, “Brightness constancy in photographic reproduction,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. 34, 540–553 (1944), claim that illumination differences must be apparent in black-and-white photographs for adequate lightness constancy to be obtained.
    [Crossref]
  43. R. Evans, “Visual processes and color photography,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. 33, 579–614 (1943).
    [Crossref]
  44. J. Schirillo, L. Arend, “An illumination change at a depth edge can reduce lightness constancy,” submitted to Percept. Psychophys.
  45. A. Laudauer, R. Rodger, “Effect of ‘apparent’ instructions on brightness judgments,”J. Exp. Psychol. 68, 80–84 (1964).
    [Crossref]
  46. P. Whittle, “Increments and decrements: luminance discrimination,” Vision Res. 26, 1677–1691 (1986).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  47. The following sources provide specific incidents of increment–decrement asymmetries: brightness and lightness,10 lightness and illumination,18 figure–ground,48 adaptation,32 qualities of “pronouncedness” (Ausgepragtheit) and “insistence” (Eindringlichkeit),26 illumination,33 and grouping.49
  48. K. Koffka, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (Harcourt Brace, New York, 1935).
  49. J. Hochberg, A. Silverstein, “A quantitative index of stimulus-similarity proximity vs. differences in brightness,” Am. J. Psychol. 69, 456–458 (1956).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  50. K. Noguchi, A. Kozaki, “Perceptual scission of surface-lightness and illumination: an examination of the Gelb effect,” Psychol. Res. 47, 19–25 (1985).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]

1991 (1)

1990 (1)

J. A. Schirillo, A. Reeves, L. Arend, “Perceived lightness, but not brightness, of achromatic surfaces depends on perceived depth information,” Percept. Psychophys. 48, 82–90 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1988 (2)

A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “The ratio principle holds over a million-to-one range of illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 1–6 (1988).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “Hess and Pretori revisited: resolution of some old contradictions,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 7–16 (1988).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1987 (1)

1986 (1)

P. Whittle, “Increments and decrements: luminance discrimination,” Vision Res. 26, 1677–1691 (1986).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1985 (2)

K. Noguchi, A. Kozaki, “Perceptual scission of surface-lightness and illumination: an examination of the Gelb effect,” Psychol. Res. 47, 19–25 (1985).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

This altered the perceived brightness of the immediate surround of the test and comparison. R. Shapley, R. Reid, “Contrast and assimilation in the perception of brightness,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 82, 5983–5986 (1985).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1983 (1)

A. Gilchrist, S. Delman, A. Jacobsen, “The classification and integration of edges as critical to the perception of reflectance and illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 425–436 (1983).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1980 (2)

G. Buchsbaum, “A spatial processor model for object colour perception,”J. Franklin Inst. 310, 1–26 (1980).
[Crossref]

D. Marr, E. Hildereth, “Theory of edge detection,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 207, 187–217 (1980).
[Crossref]

1979 (1)

A. Gilchrist, “The perception of surface whites and blacks,” Sci. Am. 24, 88–97 (1979).

1977 (1)

A. Gilchrist, “Perceived lightness depends on perceived spatial arrangement,” Science 195, 185–187 (1977).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1974 (2)

T. Gibbs, R. Lawson, “Simultaneous brightness contrast in stereoscopic space,” Vision Res. 14, 983–987 (1974).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

B. Horn, “Determining lightness from an image,” Comput. Graphics Image Process. 3, 277–299 (1974).
[Crossref]

1971 (1)

1970 (2)

C. Brice, C. Fenneman, “Scene analysis using regions,” Artif. Intell. 1, 205–226 (1970).
[Crossref]

D. Mershon, W. Gogel, “Effect of stereoscopic cues on perceived whiteness,” Am. J. Psychol. 83, 55–67 (1970).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1969 (1)

W. Gogel, D. Mershon, “Depth adjacency in simultaneous contrast,” Percept. Psychophys. 5, 13–17 (1969).
[Crossref]

1968 (1)

T. Oyama, “Stimulus determinants of brightness constancy and the perception of illumination,” Jpn. Psychol. Res. 10, 146–155 (1968).

1964 (2)

A. Laudauer, R. Rodger, “Effect of ‘apparent’ instructions on brightness judgments,”J. Exp. Psychol. 68, 80–84 (1964).
[Crossref]

R. Evans, “Variables of perceived color,”J. Opt. Soc. Am. 54, 1467–1474 (1964).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1961 (1)

D. Jameson, L. Hurvich, “Complexities of perceived brightness,” Science 133, 174–179 (1961).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1956 (1)

J. Hochberg, A. Silverstein, “A quantitative index of stimulus-similarity proximity vs. differences in brightness,” Am. J. Psychol. 69, 456–458 (1956).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1955 (2)

E. Heinemann “Simultaneous brightness induction as a function of inducing- and test-field luminances,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 89–96 (1955).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

H. N. Leibowitz, N. A. Myers, P. Chinetti, “The role of simultaneous contrast in brightness constancy,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 15–18 (1955).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1948 (1)

H. Wallach, “Brightness constancy and the nature of achromatic colors,”J. Exp. Psychol. 38, 310–324 (1948).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1944 (1)

1943 (3)

1941 (1)

1934 (1)

In a related paradigm, L. Kardos, “Ding und schatten,” Z. Psychol. 23,(1934), claimed that surface lightness was determined by the illumination in a given depth plane. He reduced the illumination falling upon a light-gray test to make the luminance of the test approximately equal to that of a highly illuminated dark-gray coplanar surround. This caused the test both to appear dark-gray and to be under the same high illumination as its coplanar surround. Reducing the overall illumination falling upon the light-gray test and the dark-gray surround in a separate depth plane preserved the lighter test. Although Kardos used depth to segment multiple illuminations within a scene and showed that coplanar surfaces with equal luminance appear to have both equal reflectance and equal illumination, he did not derive a coplanar rule.

1915 (1)

Parenthetically, studies by W. Kohler, “Aus der anthropoidenstation auf teneriffa. II. Optische untersuchungen am schimpansen und am haushuhn,” Abh. Preuss Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. K. no. 3 (1915); N. Locke, “Color constancy in the rhesus monkey and in man,” Arch. Psychol. 135, 5–38 (1935); and R. Thouless, “Phenomenal regression to the real object. I,” J. Psychol. 21, 23–43 (1931), have reported that children, animals, and untrained observers favor lightness matches over brightness matches.

Arend, L.

J. A. Schirillo, A. Reeves, L. Arend, “Perceived lightness, but not brightness, of achromatic surfaces depends on perceived depth information,” Percept. Psychophys. 48, 82–90 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

L. Arend, R. Goldstein, “Simultaneous constancy, lightness, and brightness,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 2281–2285 (1987).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

J. Schirillo, L. Arend, “An illumination change at a depth edge can reduce lightness constancy,” submitted to Percept. Psychophys.

L. Arend, B. Spehar, “Lightness, brightness, and brightness contrast I. Illuminance variation,” Percept. Psycho-phys. (to be published).

L. Arend, B. Spehar, “Lightness, brightness, and brightness contrast II. Reflectance variation,” submitted to Percept. Psychophys.

Beck, J.

J. Beck, Surface Color Perception (Cornell U. Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1972).

Brice, C.

C. Brice, C. Fenneman, “Scene analysis using regions,” Artif. Intell. 1, 205–226 (1970).
[Crossref]

Buchsbaum, G.

G. Buchsbaum, “A spatial processor model for object colour perception,”J. Franklin Inst. 310, 1–26 (1980).
[Crossref]

Chinetti, P.

H. N. Leibowitz, N. A. Myers, P. Chinetti, “The role of simultaneous contrast in brightness constancy,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 15–18 (1955).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Condit, H.

Delman, S.

A. Gilchrist, S. Delman, A. Jacobsen, “The classification and integration of edges as critical to the perception of reflectance and illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 425–436 (1983).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Evans, R.

Fenneman, C.

C. Brice, C. Fenneman, “Scene analysis using regions,” Artif. Intell. 1, 205–226 (1970).
[Crossref]

Gibbs, T.

T. Gibbs, R. Lawson, “Simultaneous brightness contrast in stereoscopic space,” Vision Res. 14, 983–987 (1974).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Gilchrist, A.

A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “Hess and Pretori revisited: resolution of some old contradictions,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 7–16 (1988).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “The ratio principle holds over a million-to-one range of illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 1–6 (1988).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Gilchrist, S. Delman, A. Jacobsen, “The classification and integration of edges as critical to the perception of reflectance and illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 425–436 (1983).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Gilchrist, “The perception of surface whites and blacks,” Sci. Am. 24, 88–97 (1979).

A. Gilchrist, “Perceived lightness depends on perceived spatial arrangement,” Science 195, 185–187 (1977).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Gogel, W.

D. Mershon, W. Gogel, “Effect of stereoscopic cues on perceived whiteness,” Am. J. Psychol. 83, 55–67 (1970).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

W. Gogel, D. Mershon, “Depth adjacency in simultaneous contrast,” Percept. Psychophys. 5, 13–17 (1969).
[Crossref]

Goldstein, R.

Heinemann, E.

E. Heinemann “Simultaneous brightness induction as a function of inducing- and test-field luminances,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 89–96 (1955).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Helson, H.

Hering, E.

E. Hering, Outlines of a Theory of the Light Sense (transl. L. M. Hurvich, D. Jameson) (Harvard U. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1964).

Hildereth, E.

D. Marr, E. Hildereth, “Theory of edge detection,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 207, 187–217 (1980).
[Crossref]

Hochberg, J.

J. Hochberg, A. Silverstein, “A quantitative index of stimulus-similarity proximity vs. differences in brightness,” Am. J. Psychol. 69, 456–458 (1956).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Horn, B.

B. Horn, “Determining lightness from an image,” Comput. Graphics Image Process. 3, 277–299 (1974).
[Crossref]

Hsia, Y.

Y. Hsia, “Whiteness constancy as a function of difference in illumination,” Arch. Psychol. 284, 5–63 (1943).

Hurvich, L.

D. Jameson, L. Hurvich, “Complexities of perceived brightness,” Science 133, 174–179 (1961).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Jacobsen, A.

A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “Hess and Pretori revisited: resolution of some old contradictions,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 7–16 (1988).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “The ratio principle holds over a million-to-one range of illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 1–6 (1988).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Gilchrist, S. Delman, A. Jacobsen, “The classification and integration of edges as critical to the perception of reflectance and illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 425–436 (1983).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Jameson, D.

D. Jameson, L. Hurvich, “Complexities of perceived brightness,” Science 133, 174–179 (1961).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Jones, L.

Kardos, L.

In a related paradigm, L. Kardos, “Ding und schatten,” Z. Psychol. 23,(1934), claimed that surface lightness was determined by the illumination in a given depth plane. He reduced the illumination falling upon a light-gray test to make the luminance of the test approximately equal to that of a highly illuminated dark-gray coplanar surround. This caused the test both to appear dark-gray and to be under the same high illumination as its coplanar surround. Reducing the overall illumination falling upon the light-gray test and the dark-gray surround in a separate depth plane preserved the lighter test. Although Kardos used depth to segment multiple illuminations within a scene and showed that coplanar surfaces with equal luminance appear to have both equal reflectance and equal illumination, he did not derive a coplanar rule.

Katz, D.

D. Katz, The World of Color (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, London, 1911).

Klute, J.

Koffka, K.

K. Koffka, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (Harcourt Brace, New York, 1935).

Kohler, W.

Parenthetically, studies by W. Kohler, “Aus der anthropoidenstation auf teneriffa. II. Optische untersuchungen am schimpansen und am haushuhn,” Abh. Preuss Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. K. no. 3 (1915); N. Locke, “Color constancy in the rhesus monkey and in man,” Arch. Psychol. 135, 5–38 (1935); and R. Thouless, “Phenomenal regression to the real object. I,” J. Psychol. 21, 23–43 (1931), have reported that children, animals, and untrained observers favor lightness matches over brightness matches.

Kozaki, A.

K. Noguchi, A. Kozaki, “Perceptual scission of surface-lightness and illumination: an examination of the Gelb effect,” Psychol. Res. 47, 19–25 (1985).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Land, E.

Laudauer, A.

A. Laudauer, R. Rodger, “Effect of ‘apparent’ instructions on brightness judgments,”J. Exp. Psychol. 68, 80–84 (1964).
[Crossref]

Lawson, R.

T. Gibbs, R. Lawson, “Simultaneous brightness contrast in stereoscopic space,” Vision Res. 14, 983–987 (1974).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Leibowitz, H. N.

H. N. Leibowitz, N. A. Myers, P. Chinetti, “The role of simultaneous contrast in brightness constancy,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 15–18 (1955).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Marr, D.

D. Marr, E. Hildereth, “Theory of edge detection,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 207, 187–217 (1980).
[Crossref]

McCann, J.

Mershon, D.

D. Mershon, W. Gogel, “Effect of stereoscopic cues on perceived whiteness,” Am. J. Psychol. 83, 55–67 (1970).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

W. Gogel, D. Mershon, “Depth adjacency in simultaneous contrast,” Percept. Psychophys. 5, 13–17 (1969).
[Crossref]

Myers, N. A.

H. N. Leibowitz, N. A. Myers, P. Chinetti, “The role of simultaneous contrast in brightness constancy,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 15–18 (1955).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Noguchi, K.

K. Noguchi, A. Kozaki, “Perceptual scission of surface-lightness and illumination: an examination of the Gelb effect,” Psychol. Res. 47, 19–25 (1985).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Oyama, T.

T. Oyama, “Stimulus determinants of brightness constancy and the perception of illumination,” Jpn. Psychol. Res. 10, 146–155 (1968).

Reeves, A.

J. A. Schirillo, A. Reeves, L. Arend, “Perceived lightness, but not brightness, of achromatic surfaces depends on perceived depth information,” Percept. Psychophys. 48, 82–90 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Reid, R.

This altered the perceived brightness of the immediate surround of the test and comparison. R. Shapley, R. Reid, “Contrast and assimilation in the perception of brightness,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 82, 5983–5986 (1985).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Reid, R. C.

R. C. Reid, R. M. Shapley, “Non-local effects in the perception of brightness: Psychophysics and neurophysiology,” in Seeing Contour and Colour, J. J. Kulikowski, C. M. Dickinson, I. J. Murray, eds. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1989).

Rodger, R.

A. Laudauer, R. Rodger, “Effect of ‘apparent’ instructions on brightness judgments,”J. Exp. Psychol. 68, 80–84 (1964).
[Crossref]

Schirillo, J.

J. Schirillo, L. Arend, “An illumination change at a depth edge can reduce lightness constancy,” submitted to Percept. Psychophys.

Schirillo, J. A.

J. A. Schirillo, A. Reeves, L. Arend, “Perceived lightness, but not brightness, of achromatic surfaces depends on perceived depth information,” Percept. Psychophys. 48, 82–90 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Sewall, L.

Shapley, R.

This altered the perceived brightness of the immediate surround of the test and comparison. R. Shapley, R. Reid, “Contrast and assimilation in the perception of brightness,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 82, 5983–5986 (1985).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Shapley, R. M.

R. C. Reid, R. M. Shapley, “Non-local effects in the perception of brightness: Psychophysics and neurophysiology,” in Seeing Contour and Colour, J. J. Kulikowski, C. M. Dickinson, I. J. Murray, eds. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1989).

Silverstein, A.

J. Hochberg, A. Silverstein, “A quantitative index of stimulus-similarity proximity vs. differences in brightness,” Am. J. Psychol. 69, 456–458 (1956).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Spehar, B.

L. Arend, B. Spehar, “Lightness, brightness, and brightness contrast II. Reflectance variation,” submitted to Percept. Psychophys.

L. Arend, B. Spehar, “Lightness, brightness, and brightness contrast I. Illuminance variation,” Percept. Psycho-phys. (to be published).

Wallach, H.

H. Wallach, “Brightness constancy and the nature of achromatic colors,”J. Exp. Psychol. 38, 310–324 (1948).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Whittle, P.

P. Whittle, “Increments and decrements: luminance discrimination,” Vision Res. 26, 1677–1691 (1986).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Wooten, B.

Abh. Preuss Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. K. no. 3 (1)

Parenthetically, studies by W. Kohler, “Aus der anthropoidenstation auf teneriffa. II. Optische untersuchungen am schimpansen und am haushuhn,” Abh. Preuss Akad. Wiss. Phys.-Math. K. no. 3 (1915); N. Locke, “Color constancy in the rhesus monkey and in man,” Arch. Psychol. 135, 5–38 (1935); and R. Thouless, “Phenomenal regression to the real object. I,” J. Psychol. 21, 23–43 (1931), have reported that children, animals, and untrained observers favor lightness matches over brightness matches.

Am. J. Psychol. (2)

D. Mershon, W. Gogel, “Effect of stereoscopic cues on perceived whiteness,” Am. J. Psychol. 83, 55–67 (1970).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

J. Hochberg, A. Silverstein, “A quantitative index of stimulus-similarity proximity vs. differences in brightness,” Am. J. Psychol. 69, 456–458 (1956).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Arch. Psychol. (1)

Y. Hsia, “Whiteness constancy as a function of difference in illumination,” Arch. Psychol. 284, 5–63 (1943).

Artif. Intell. (1)

C. Brice, C. Fenneman, “Scene analysis using regions,” Artif. Intell. 1, 205–226 (1970).
[Crossref]

Comput. Graphics Image Process. (1)

B. Horn, “Determining lightness from an image,” Comput. Graphics Image Process. 3, 277–299 (1974).
[Crossref]

J. Exp. Psychol. (4)

A. Laudauer, R. Rodger, “Effect of ‘apparent’ instructions on brightness judgments,”J. Exp. Psychol. 68, 80–84 (1964).
[Crossref]

H. N. Leibowitz, N. A. Myers, P. Chinetti, “The role of simultaneous contrast in brightness constancy,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 15–18 (1955).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

H. Wallach, “Brightness constancy and the nature of achromatic colors,”J. Exp. Psychol. 38, 310–324 (1948).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

E. Heinemann “Simultaneous brightness induction as a function of inducing- and test-field luminances,”J. Exp. Psychol. 50, 89–96 (1955).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

J. Franklin Inst. (1)

G. Buchsbaum, “A spatial processor model for object colour perception,”J. Franklin Inst. 310, 1–26 (1980).
[Crossref]

J. Opt. Soc. Am. (6)

J. Opt. Soc. Am. A (2)

Jpn. Psychol. Res. (1)

T. Oyama, “Stimulus determinants of brightness constancy and the perception of illumination,” Jpn. Psychol. Res. 10, 146–155 (1968).

Percept. Psychophys. (5)

A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “The ratio principle holds over a million-to-one range of illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 1–6 (1988).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Jacobsen, A. Gilchrist, “Hess and Pretori revisited: resolution of some old contradictions,” Percept. Psychophys. 43, 7–16 (1988).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

W. Gogel, D. Mershon, “Depth adjacency in simultaneous contrast,” Percept. Psychophys. 5, 13–17 (1969).
[Crossref]

J. A. Schirillo, A. Reeves, L. Arend, “Perceived lightness, but not brightness, of achromatic surfaces depends on perceived depth information,” Percept. Psychophys. 48, 82–90 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Gilchrist, S. Delman, A. Jacobsen, “The classification and integration of edges as critical to the perception of reflectance and illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 425–436 (1983).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (1)

This altered the perceived brightness of the immediate surround of the test and comparison. R. Shapley, R. Reid, “Contrast and assimilation in the perception of brightness,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 82, 5983–5986 (1985).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B (1)

D. Marr, E. Hildereth, “Theory of edge detection,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 207, 187–217 (1980).
[Crossref]

Psychol. Res. (1)

K. Noguchi, A. Kozaki, “Perceptual scission of surface-lightness and illumination: an examination of the Gelb effect,” Psychol. Res. 47, 19–25 (1985).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Sci. Am. (1)

A. Gilchrist, “The perception of surface whites and blacks,” Sci. Am. 24, 88–97 (1979).

Science (2)

D. Jameson, L. Hurvich, “Complexities of perceived brightness,” Science 133, 174–179 (1961).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Gilchrist, “Perceived lightness depends on perceived spatial arrangement,” Science 195, 185–187 (1977).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Vision Res. (2)

T. Gibbs, R. Lawson, “Simultaneous brightness contrast in stereoscopic space,” Vision Res. 14, 983–987 (1974).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

P. Whittle, “Increments and decrements: luminance discrimination,” Vision Res. 26, 1677–1691 (1986).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Z. Psychol. (1)

In a related paradigm, L. Kardos, “Ding und schatten,” Z. Psychol. 23,(1934), claimed that surface lightness was determined by the illumination in a given depth plane. He reduced the illumination falling upon a light-gray test to make the luminance of the test approximately equal to that of a highly illuminated dark-gray coplanar surround. This caused the test both to appear dark-gray and to be under the same high illumination as its coplanar surround. Reducing the overall illumination falling upon the light-gray test and the dark-gray surround in a separate depth plane preserved the lighter test. Although Kardos used depth to segment multiple illuminations within a scene and showed that coplanar surfaces with equal luminance appear to have both equal reflectance and equal illumination, he did not derive a coplanar rule.

Other (16)

The two displays of Arend and Goldstein10“were identical paper arrays illuminated by different sources.” Their instructions to “adjust the test patch to look as if it were cut from the same piece of paper” makes explicit to the observer that the test and comparison patches were under different illuminants. The current instructions to create the “same shade of gray” do not demand that the observer infer a different level of illumination for the test and comparison. Jacobsen and Gilchrist (Ref. 3 and Ref. 16) also obtained lightness judgments by having observers match the “shade of gray.”

Gibbs and Lawson23 showed that a small test disparity affected brightness judgments by approximately 10%, whereas addition of disparity to the test did not increase the effect.

L. Arend, B. Spehar, “Lightness, brightness, and brightness contrast I. Illuminance variation,” Percept. Psycho-phys. (to be published).

L. Arend, B. Spehar, “Lightness, brightness, and brightness contrast II. Reflectance variation,” submitted to Percept. Psychophys.

E. Hering, Outlines of a Theory of the Light Sense (transl. L. M. Hurvich, D. Jameson) (Harvard U. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1964).

J. Beck, Surface Color Perception (Cornell U. Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 1972).

R. C. Reid, R. M. Shapley, “Non-local effects in the perception of brightness: Psychophysics and neurophysiology,” in Seeing Contour and Colour, J. J. Kulikowski, C. M. Dickinson, I. J. Murray, eds. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1989).

Perceived brightness and perceived lightness in a three-dimensional scene can be derived from local contrast of retinally adjacent coplanar surfaces that share an illuminant (see Ref. 8).

Only 40 of Gogel and Mershon’s12 60 observers reported the effect of depth separation on lightness.

Observers did not report that the test appeared in a film mode of perception (Ref. 26) when it was viewed in a hole within the far Mondrian.

D. Katz, The World of Color (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, London, 1911).

Mershon and Gogel27 reported a maximum perceived difference of 0.7/ Munsell step when the far disk was 44% farther than the near disk. Their hypothesis of increased neural uncoupling with increasing depth implies that with sufficient separation, induction effects would disappear altogether. In the current experiment the far Mondrian was 19% farther than the test patch that was perceived in the near plane.

The fact that such a restricted range is sufficient suggests that many natural scenes potentially contain multiple levels of illumination. For example, in more than 100 natural outdoor scenes the average contrast is approximately 160:1,34 while luminance ratios greater than 60:1 tend to be perceived as changes in illumination instead of as changes in lightness (Refs. 32 and 33 below).

The following sources provide specific incidents of increment–decrement asymmetries: brightness and lightness,10 lightness and illumination,18 figure–ground,48 adaptation,32 qualities of “pronouncedness” (Ausgepragtheit) and “insistence” (Eindringlichkeit),26 illumination,33 and grouping.49

K. Koffka, Principles of Gestalt Psychology (Harcourt Brace, New York, 1935).

J. Schirillo, L. Arend, “An illumination change at a depth edge can reduce lightness constancy,” submitted to Percept. Psychophys.

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.


Figures (11)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Diagram of the stimulus pattern on the CRT screen. The entire upper Mondrian and lower test patch had 34′ of crossed retinal disparity. Each Mondrian had a 6:1 range of simulated surface reflectance. The luminance of each patch in the lower Mondrians was one fifth that of its corresponding patch in the upper Mondrians.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Schematic of the binocularly fused stimulus pattern. The upper Mondrian appeared to be nearer than the lower Mondrian. The 1° × 1° test is shown with both 0′ and 34′ of crossed retinal disparity. In Experiment 3 the gray (R = 25%) immediate surround (shown here) was black (R = 0%). In Experiment 8 the luminances of selected patches (e.g., A and A′) were exchanged while others (e.g., B and B′) were not until the difference in average luminance across Mondrians was minimized.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Brightness matches (symbols) as a function of comparison luminance. Test and comparison luminance of 1.0 = 58.9 cd/m2. Squares, no depth (test coplanar with its immediately surrounding Mondrian); circles, in depth (test coplanar with the nearer retinally nonadjacent Mondrian, i.e., out of the depth plane of its immediately surrounding Mondrian). The 45° dashed lines are the physical-luminance matches; the dotted lines are the reflectance matches (i.e., lightness constancy). Each data point is the average of three separate sessions performed on different days. Error bars indicate the standard error of the mean across days (subjects: JS, SG, and BP).

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Lightness matches (symbols) as a function of comparison luminance. Squares, no-depth; circles, in-depth (subjects: JS, SG, and BP). Other information is the same as for Fig. 3.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Brightness (filled symbols) and lightness (open symbols) matches as a function of comparison luminance. The area surrounding the test and comparison patches now is black. Squares, no depth; circles, in depth (subjects: JS, SG, and BP). Dashed lines, physical-luminance matches; dotted lines, reflectance matches.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

(a) Brightness judgments expressed as the percentage change in test luminance relative to the no-depth condition (depth minus no depth, divided by no depth), as a function of test depth (disparity), for subject JS. Results are shown for four comparison-luminance levels. Dashed curves are fits of a two- parameter model. (b) Same as (a) for subject SG.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Brightness matches when test and immediate surround vary together in depth (symbols) as a function of comparison luminance. Squares, no depth (test and immediate surround coplanar with immediately surrounding Mondrian); circles, in depth (test and immediate surround coplanar with the nearer retinally nonadjacent Mondrian. Brightness matches from Fig. 3 are replotted here as dotted–dashed curves (subjects: JS and SG). Dashed lines, physical-luminance matches; dotted lines, reflectance matches.

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Brightness matches (symbols) as a function of comparison luminance with Mondrians in two dimensions. Squares, no depth; circles, in depth (subjects: JS, SG, and BP). Dashed lines, physical-luminance matches; dotted lines, reflectance matches.

Fig. 9
Fig. 9

Brightness matches (symbols) with test behind far Mondrian (in depth) or in its surrounding Mondrian (no depth). Squares, no depth; circles, in depth (subjects: JS, SG, and BP). Dashed lines, physical-luminance matches; dotted lines, reflectance matches.

Fig. 10
Fig. 10

Brightness matches (symbols) with the comparison in depth (far plane) or in its usual adjacent Mondrian (no depth, near plane). Squares, no depth; circles, in depth (subjects: JS, SG, and BP). Dashed lines, physical-luminance matches; dotted lines, reflectance matches.

Fig. 11
Fig. 11

Brightness–lightness matches (symbols) as a function of comparison luminance, with Mondrians with ungrouped luminances. Solid symbols from Fig. 3 are replotted here as dotted–dashed lines. Squares, no depth; circles, in depth (subjects: JS and SG). Dashed lines, physical-luminance matches; dotted lines, reflectance matches.

Tables (1)

Tables Icon

Table 1 Ratio of the SEM for Log Brightness to the SEM for Log Lightness for In-Depth, No-Depth, and On-Average Tests for Subjects JS, SG, and BPa

Metrics