Abstract

It is widely agreed that the color vision process moves quickly from cone receptors to opponent color cells in the retina and lateral geniculate nucleus. Many workers have proposed the transformation or coding of long, medium, short (LMS) cone responses to r − g, y − b opponent color chromatic responses (unique hues) on the following basis: That L, M, S cones represent Red, Green, and Blue hues, with Yellow represented by (L + M), while r − g and y − b represent the opponent pairs of unique hues. The traditional coding from cones to opponent colors is that L − M gives r − g, while (L + M) − S gives y − b. This convention is open to several criticisms, and a new coding is required. A literature search produced 16 studies of cone responses LMS and 15 studies of spectral (i.e., ygb) opponent color chromatic responses, in terms of response wavelength peaks. Comparative analysis of the two sets of studies shows the means are almost identical (within 3 nm; i.e., L = y, M = g, S = b). Further, the response curves of LMS are very similar shapes to ygb. In sum, each set can directly transform to the other on this proposed coding: (S + L) − M gives r − g, while L − S gives y − b. This coding activates neural operations in the cardinal directions r − g and y − b.

Highlights

  • It is widely agreed that the color vision process moves quickly from cone receptors to opponent color cells in the retina and lateral geniculate nucleus

  • That the color vision process consists of a minimum of two stages, commencing with three cone receptors and moving quickly to opponent color cells in the retina and lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN)

  • Buchsbaum and Gottschalk (1983) argue that efficient information transmission requires a prompt transformation of the three cone mechanisms into an achromatic and two opponent chromatic channels

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is widely agreed that the color vision process moves quickly from cone receptors to opponent color cells in the retina and lateral geniculate nucleus. The opponent or interactive nature of the second stage is widely supported by various workers, including Hurvich and Jameson’s (Jameson & Hurvich, 1955; Hurvich & Jameson, 1955; Hurvich & Jameson, 1957) hue cancellation experiments and other evidence for mixtures of chromatic signals (Boynton, Ikeda, & Stiles, 1964; Mollon & Polden, 1975; Krauskopf, 1973) To this end, most workers (e.g., Conway, 2009; Wiesel & Hubel, 1966; Dacey & Lee, 1994; Reid & Shapley, 2002; Field et al, 2007; Foster & Amano, 2019) have proposed the transformation or coding of LMS cone responses (see Fig. 1) to r − g, y − b opponent color chromatic responses (see Fig. 2) on the following basis: that L, M, S cones represent Red, Green, and Blue hues (with Yellow represented by [L + M]), while r − g and y − b represent opponent pairs of unique hues. The Red Green Blue peaks of trichromatic functions are denoted by RGB

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.