Lightness contrast and lightness assimilation are opposite phenomena: in contrast, grey targets appear darker when bordering bright surfaces (inducers) rather than dark ones; in assimilation, the opposite occurs. The question is: which visual process favours the occurrence of one phenomenon over the other? Researchers provided three answers to this question. The first asserts that both phenomena are caused by peripheral processes; the second attributes their occurrence to central processes; and the third claims that contrast involves central processes, whilst assimilation involves peripheral ones. To test these hypotheses, an experiment on an IT system equipped with goggles for stereo vision was run. Observers were asked to evaluate the lightness of a grey target, and two variables were systematically manipulated: (i) the apparent distance of the inducers; and (ii) brightness of the inducers. The retinal stimulation was kept constant throughout, so that the peripheral processes remained the same. The results show that the lightness of the target depends on both variables. As the retinal stimulation was kept constant, we conclude that central mechanisms are involved in both lightness contrast and lightness assimilation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelsonE HPentlandA P, 1996“The perception of shading and reflectance”, in Perception as Bayesian Inference Eds KnillDRichardsW (New York: Cambridge University Press) pp 409–423
2.
AgostiniTDarisDGalmonteA, 2001“Kanizsa's paradox revisited”Journal of Vision1(3) 424a (abstract)
3.
AgostiniTGalmonteA, 2002“Perceptual organization overcomes the effects of local surround in determining simultaneous lightness contrast”Psychological Science1388–92
AndersonB L, 1997“A theory of illusory lightness and transparency in monocular and binocular images: the role of contour junctions”Perception26419–453
6.
AndersonB LWinawerJ, 2005“Image segmentation and lightness perception”Nature43479–83
7.
BarrowH GTenenbaumJ M, 1978“Recovering intrinsic scene characteristics from images”, in Computer Vision Systems Eds HansonA RRisemanE M (New York: Academic Press) pp 3–26
8.
BenaryW, 1924“Beobachtungen zu einem Experiment über Helligkeitskontrast”Psychologische Forschung5131–142
9.
BergströmS S, 1977“Common and relative components of reflected light as information about the illumination, colour, and three-dimensional form of objects”Scandinavian Journal of Psychology18180–186
10.
von BezoldW, 1874Die Farbenlehrer im Hinblick auf Kunst und Kunstgewerbe (Brunswick: Westermann) [translated into English by KochlerS R in An Introduction to Colour Ed. EvansR M (New York: John Wiley, 1948)]
11.
BressanP, 2006“The place of white in a world of grays: a double-anchoring theory of lightness perception”Psychological Review113526–553
12.
CorenS, 1969“Brightness contrast as a function of figure – ground relations”Journal of Experimental Psychology80517–524
13.
De ValoisR LDe ValoisK K, 1975“Neural coding of color”, in Handbook of Perceptionvolume 5, Eds CarteretteE CFriedmanM P (New York: Academic Press) pp 156–157
14.
EaglemanD MJacobsonJ ESejnowskiT J, 2004“Perceived luminance depends on temporal context”Nature428854–856
15.
FestingerLCorenSRoversG, 1970“The effect of attention on brightness contrast and assimilation”American Journal of Psychology83189–207
16.
FuchsW, 1923“Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Änderung von Farben unter dem Einfluss von Gestalten (Angleichungserscheinungen)”Zeitschrift für Psychologie92249–263
17.
GibbsTLawsonR B, 1974“Simultaneous brightness contrast in stereoscopic space”Vision Research14983–987
18.
GilchristA, 1979“The perception of surface blacks and whites”Scientific American240112–123
19.
GilchristA, 1988“Lightness contrast and failures of constancy: a common explanation”Perception & Psychophysics43415–424
20.
GilchristA, 2006Seeing Black and White Oxford Psychology Series (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
21.
GilchristAKossyfidisCBonatoFAgostiniTCataliottiJLiXSpeharBAnnanVEconomouE, 1999“An anchoring theory of lightness perception”Psychological Review106795–834
22.
HelsonH, 1964Adaptation-Level Theory (New York: Harper & Row)
23.
HurvichL MJamesonD, 1966The Perception of Brightness and Darkness (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon)
24.
HurvichL MJamesonD, 1974“Opponent processes as a mode of neural organisation”American Psychologist2988–102
25.
JamesonDHurvichL M, 1975“From contrast to assimilation: In art and in the eye”Leonardo8125–131 [reprinted in Vision and Artefact Ed. HenleM (New York: Springer) pp 49–64]
26.
JuleszB, 1971Foundations of Cyclopean Perception (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press)
27.
KanizsaG, 1979Organization in Vision: Essays on Gestalt Perception (New York: Praeger) pp 143–150
28.
KanizsaG, 1988“Color and organization: A response to King”New Ideas in Psychology6289–291
29.
KingD, 1988“Assimilation is due to one perceived whole and contrast is due to two perceived wholes”New Ideas in Psychology6277–288
30.
van LierRWagemansJ, 1997“Perceptual grouping measured by color assimilation: Regularity versus proximity”Acta Psychologica9737–70
31.
MetelliF, 1974“Achromatic color conditions in the perception of transparency”, in Perception: Essays in Honor of J. J. Gibson Eds McLeodR BPickH L (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press) pp 93–116
32.
MunkerH, 1970“Farbige Gitter, Abbildung auf der Netzhaut und überfragungstheoretische Beschreibung der Farbwahrnehmung”, Habilitationschrift, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
33.
MusattiC, 1931“Forma e assimilizione”Archivio Italiano di Psicologia9213–269
34.
MusattiC, 1953“Ricerche sperimentali sopra la percezione cromatica”Archivio Italiano di Psicologia, Neurologia e Psichiatria14541–577
35.
ReidR CShapleyR, 1988“Brightness induction by local contrast and the spatial dependence of assimilation”Vision Research28115–132
36.
SoranzoAAgostiniT, 2004“Impossible shadows and lightness constancy”Perception331359–1368
