scholarly journals Spatio-chromatic sensitivity explained by post-receptoral contrast

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Lucassen ◽  
Marc Lambooij ◽  
Dragan Sekulovski ◽  
Ingrid Vogels
Keyword(s):  
Chromatic Sensitivity

Loss of chromatic sensitivity in AMD and diabetes: a comparative study

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 705-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. O’Neill-Biba ◽  
S. Sivaprasad ◽  
M. Rodriguez-Carmona ◽  
J. E. Wolf ◽  
J. L. Barbur
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Chromatic Sensitivity

Chromatic sensitivity of neurones in area MT of the anaesthetised macaque monkey compared to human motion perception

2005 ◽  
Vol 167 (4) ◽  
pp. 504-525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Igor Riečanský ◽  
Alexander Thiele ◽  
Claudia Distler ◽  
Klaus-Peter Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
Motion Perception ◽  
Macaque Monkey ◽  
Human Motion ◽  
Area Mt ◽  
Chromatic Sensitivity

scholarly journals Chromatic sensitivity of surround suppression in macaque V1 and V2

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 140-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. G Solomon ◽  
J. W Peirce ◽  
J. Krauskopf ◽  
P. Lennie
Keyword(s):  
Surround Suppression ◽  
Chromatic Sensitivity

scholarly journals Sex-related differences in chromatic sensitivity

2008 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. RODRÍGUEZ-CARMONA ◽  
L.T. SHARPE ◽  
J.A. HARLOW ◽  
J.L. BARBUR
Keyword(s):  
Color Vision ◽  
Color Space ◽  
Color Discrimination ◽  
Luminance Contrast ◽  
Choice Procedure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Forced Choice Procedure ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Chromatic Sensitivity ◽  
Female Carriers

Generally women are believed to be more discriminating than men in the use of color names and this is often taken to imply superior color vision. However, if both X-chromosome linked color deficient males (∼8%) and females (<1%) as well as heterozygote female carriers (∼15%) are excluded from comparisons, then differences between men and women in red-green (RG) color discrimination have been reported as not being significant (e.g., Pickford, 1944; Hood et al., 2006). We re-examined this question by assessing the performance of 150 males and 150 females on the color assessment and diagnosis (CAD) test (Rodriguez-Carmona et al., 2005). This is a sensitive test that yields small color detection thresholds. The test employs direction-specific, moving, chromatic stimuli embedded in a background of random, dynamic, luminance contrast noise. A four-alternative, forced-choice procedure is employed to measure the subject's thresholds for detection of color signals in 16 directions in color space, while ensuring that the subject cannot make use of any residual luminance contrast signals. In addition, we measured the Rayleigh anomaloscope matches in a subgroup of 111 males and 114 females. All the age-matched males (30.8 ± 9.7) and females (26.7 ± 8.8) had normal color vision as diagnosed by a battery of conventional color vision tests. Females with known color deficient relatives were excluded from the study. Comparisons between the male and female groups revealed no significant differences in anomaloscope midpoints (p = 0.709), but a significant difference in matching ranges (p = 0.040); females on average tended to have a larger mean range (4.11) than males (3.75). Females also had significantly higher CAD thresholds than males along the RG (p = 0.0004), but not along the yellow-blue (YB) discrimination axis. The differences between males and females in RG discrimination may be related to the heterozygosity in X-linked cone photo pigment expression common among females.

Mild Hypoxia Impairs Chromatic Sensitivity in the Mesopic Range

2008 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desmond M. Connolly ◽  
John L. Barbur ◽  
Sarah L. Hosking ◽  
Ian R. Moorhead
Keyword(s):  
Chromatic Sensitivity ◽  
Mild Hypoxia
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document