Large depth effects on lightness in the absence of a large luminance range.

To investigate the role of luminance range for lightness computations in complex 3-dimensional scenes we measured the change in lightness of a surface embedded within a relatively low-luminance-range context, as its perceived spatial position shifted from one plane to another. Our experiment tested conflicting claims between the coplanar ratio principle, according to which large depth effects require a high overall luminance range, and the anchoring theory, which predicts that depth effects can occur with a low overall range, given a sufficiently large difference between the highest luminance values in the 2 planes. Our results show decisive support for the anchoring theory but also hint at a large expansion of the perceived range of reflectances (gray shades) relative to the actual range within each plane. This expansion is qualitatively consistent with anchoring theory's scale normalization principle, but it is surprising in magnitude. Together with our earlier findings showing a massive compression of the perceived reflectance range in unsegmented high-dynamic-range Mondrians, our results underline the urgency of the scaling problem in lightness theory (how luminance range is mapped onto lightness range), a companion of the anchoring problem (which point on the lightness scale is anchored to which point on the luminance scale). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Perception of a Black Room Seen Through a Veiling Luminance.

When a black room (a room painted black and filled with objects painted black) is viewed through a veiling luminance, how does it appear? Prior work on black rooms and white rooms suggests the room will appear white because mutual illumination in the high-reflectance white room lowers image contrast, and the veil also lowers image contrast. Other work reporting high lightness constancy for three-dimensional scenes viewed through a veil suggests the veil will not make the room appear lighter. Because mutual illumination also modifies the pattern of luminance gradients across the room while the veil does not, we were able to tease apart local luminance gradients from overall luminance contrast by presenting observers with a black room viewed through a veiling luminance. The room appeared white, and no veil was perceived. This suggests that lightness judgments in a room of one reflectance depend on overall luminance contrast only.

Lightness in a Flash: Effect of Exposure Time on Lightness Perception.

A gray target can appear lighter or darker depending on its surrounding spatial context. We examined the effect of exposure time on three such examples (simultaneous lightness contrast, dungeon illusion, and the two-room arrangement), finding very different results with exposure time as brief as 15 ms: the simultaneous lightness contrast was much stronger, the effect of the dungeon illusion was reversed, and the lightness difference between the two isoluminant patches in the two-room arrangement disappeared. These suggest that local luminance ratios dominate lightness perception in a brief flash.

What is the relationship between lightness and perceived illumination.

Surface reflectance and illumination level, which are confounded in the retinal image, must be disentangled by the visual system and a theory of lightness must explain how. Thus, a theory of surface lightness should also be a theory of perceived illumination and describe the relationship between them. Perceived illumination and perceived gray values have been measured using a new technique. Looking into a vision tunnel, observers saw two square apertures in the far wall, each revealing a patch of wall composed of two shades of gray. They adjusted the illumination level in one aperture to match that in the other. The stimuli placed in the apertures varied in luminance range, spatial frequency, and relative area. Results show that (a) illumination is matched for highest luminance (with no effect of spatial frequency). Combined with earlier findings that lightness is anchored by highest luminance, this supports Koffka's suggestion that lightness and perceived illumination are coupled in an invariant way. (b) Changes in the relative area of the light and dark shades produced complementary influences on perceived illumination and surface lightness. That is, when stimulus conditions evoke a conflict between anchoring the highest luminance at white and anchoring the largest area at white, enlarging the darker shade causes its lightness to increase and the perceived illumination to decrease by the same amount, further supporting Koffka. (c) These findings allow perceived illumination level to now be systematically incorporated into anchoring theory, which until this point has been solely a theory of surface lightness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Layer and framework theories of lightness.

Lightness (the perceived dimension running from black to white) represents a problem for vision science because the light coming to the eye from an object totally fails to specify the shade of gray of the object, due to the confounding of surface gray and illumination intensity. The two leading approaches, decomposition theories and anchoring theories, split the retinal image into overlapping layers and adjacent frameworks, respectively. Because each approach has important strengths and some weaknesses, an integration of them would mark an important step forward for the lightness theory. But the problem remains how this integration can actually be realized.

To compute lightness, illumination is not estimated, it is held constant.

The light reaching the eye from a surface does not indicate the black-gray-white shade of a surface (called lightness) because the effects of illumination level are confounded with the reflectance of the surface. Rotating a gray paper relative to a light source alters its luminance (intensity of light reaching the eye) but the lightness of the paper remains relatively constant. Recent publications have argued, as had Helmholtz (1866/1924), that the visual system unconsciously estimates the direction and intensity of the light source. We report experiments in which this theory was pitted against an alternative theory according to which illumination level and surface reflectance are disentangled by comparing only those surfaces that are equally illuminated, in other words, by holding illumination level constant. A 3-dimensional scene was created within which the rotation of a target surface would be expected to become darker gray according to the lighting estimation theory, but lighter gray according to the equi-illumination comparison theory, with results clearly favoring the latter. In a further experiment cues held to indicate light source direction (cast shadows, attached shadows, and glossy highlights) were completely eliminated and yet this had no effect on the results. (PsycINFO Database Record

Grouping Factors and the Reverse Contrast Illusion.

In simultaneous lightness contrast, two identical gray target squares lying on backgrounds of different intensities appear different in lightness. Traditionally, this illusion was explained by lateral inhibitory mechanisms operating retinotopically. More recently, spatial filtering models have been preferred. We report tests of an anchoring theory account in which the illusion is attributed to grouping rules used by the visual system to compute lightness. We parametrically varied the belongingness of two gray target bars to their respective backgrounds so that they either appeared to group with a set of bars flanking them, or they appeared to group with their respective backgrounds. In all variations, the retinal adjacency of the gray squares and their backgrounds was essentially unchanged. We report data from seven experiments showing that manipulation of the grouping rules governs the size and direction of the simultaneous lightness contrast illusion. These results support the idea that simultaneous lightness contrast is the product of anchoring within perceptual groups.

Theoretical approaches to lightness and perception.

Theories of lightness, like theories of perception in general, can be categorized as high-level, low-level, and mid-level. However, I will argue that in practice there are only two categories: one-stage mid-level theories, and two-stage low-high theories. Low-level theories usually include a high-level component and high-level theories include a low-level component, the distinction being mainly one of emphasis. Two-stage theories are the modern incarnation of the persistent sensation/perception dichotomy according to which an early experience of raw sensations, faithful to the proximal stimulus, is followed by a process of cognitive interpretation, typically based on past experience. Like phlogiston or the ether, raw sensations seem like they must exist, but there is no clear evidence for them. Proximal stimulus matches are postperceptual, not read off an early sensory stage. Visual angle matches are achieved by a cognitive process of flattening the visual world. Likewise, brightness (luminance) matches depend on a cognitive process of flattening the illumination. Brightness is not the input to lightness; brightness is slower than lightness. Evidence for an early (< 200 ms) mosaic stage is shaky. As for cognitive influences on perception, the many claims tend to fall apart upon close inspection of the evidence. Much of the evidence for the current revival of the 'new look' is probably better explained by (1) a natural desire of (some) subjects to please the experimenter, and (2) the ease of intuiting an experimental hypothesis. High-level theories of lightness are overkill. The visual system does not need to know the amount of illumination, merely which surfaces share the same illumination. This leaves mid-level theories derived from the gestalt school. Here the debate seems to revolve around layer models and framework models. Layer models fit our visual experience of a pattern of illumination projected onto a pattern of reflectance, while framework models provide a better account of illusions and failures of constancy. Evidence for and against these approaches is reviewed.

Poggendorff rides again!

The Poggendorff illusion is one of the most exhaustively studied illusions. Can it be revived as an interesting problem? Perhaps by moving it to a slightly different domain. Here, we consider the occlusion of a subjectively linear ramp of tonal values. In a simple experiment, we find results closely resembling those of the geometrical Poggendorff. Yet, the "explanations" offered for the latter hardly apply to the former case. Depending upon one's perspective, this may be taken to "revive" the Poggendorff illusion.

Lightness perception in simple images: testing the anchoring rules.

One approach toward understanding how vision computes surface lightness is to first determine what principles govern lightness in simple stimuli and then test whether these hold for more complex stimuli. Gilchrist (2006) proposed that in the simplest images that produce the experience of a surface (two surfaces differing in luminance that fill the entire visual field) lightness can be predicted based on two anchoring rules: the highest luminance rule and the area rule, plus a scale normalization. To test whether these anchoring rules hold when critical features of the stimuli are varied, we probed lightness in simple stimuli, painted onto the inside of hemispheric domes viewed under diffuse lighting. We find that although the highest luminance surface appears nearly white across a large variation in illumination (as predicted by the highest luminance rule), its lightness tends to increase as its luminance increases. This effect is small relative to the size of the overall luminance change. Further, we find that when the darker region fills more than half of the visual field, it appears to lighten with further increases in area but only if it is a single surface. Splitting the dark region into smaller sectors that cover an equal cumulative area diminishes or eliminates the area effect.

A gestalt account of lightness illusions.

Illusions of lightness offer valuable clues to how lightness values are computed by the visual system. The traditional domain of lightness illusions must be expanded to include failures of constancy, as there is no distinction between these categories. Just as lightness is (relatively) constant in the face of changes in illumination level, so it is equally constant in the face of changes in background reflectance. Simultaneous lightness contrast, the most familiar lightness illusion, is fairly weak, and represents a failure of background-independent lightness constancy. It is argued that a combination of the highest-luminance rule of anchoring plus the Kardos idea of codetermination can account for most lightness illusions. Kardos suggested that the lightness value of a target surface is partly determined relative to the field of illumination (or framework) in which it is embedded, and partly relative to the neighboring field of illumination. Although Kardos did not apply his principle of codetermination to failures of background-independent constancy such as the simultaneous contrast illusion, this can be done rather easily by defining a framework as a perceptual group instead of identifying it strictly with an objective field of illumination.

Depth effect on lightness revisited: The role of articulation, proximity and fields of illumination.

The coplanar ratio principle proposes that when the luminance range in an image is larger than the canonical reflectance range of 30:1, the lightness of a target surface depends on the luminance ratio between that target and its adjacent coplanar neighbor (Gilchrist, 1980). This conclusion is based on experiments in which changes in the perceived target depth produced large changes in its perceived lightness without significantly altering the observers' retinal image. Using the same paradigm, we explored how this depth effect on lightness depends on display complexity (articulation), proximity of the target to its highest coplanar luminance and spatial distribution of fields of illumination. Importantly, our experiments allowed us to test differing predictions made by the anchoring theory (Gilchrist et al., 1999), the coplanar ratio principle, as well as other models. We report three main findings, generally consistent with anchoring theory predictions: (1) Articulation can substantially increase the depth effect. (2) Target lightness depends not on the adjacent luminance but on the highest coplanar luminance, irrespective of its position relative to the target. (3) When a plane contains multiple fields of illumination, target lightness depends on the highest luminance in its field of illumination, not on the highest coplanar luminance.