On 2016 Dec 13, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Witzel et al’s (2016) degree of ignorance of the fundamentals of their chosen topic is capable of disconcerting even the most jaded observer of the vision literature (me). Intentionally or not, it reflects the tenacious, subterranean grip of the behaviorist tradition (consideration only of simple signal (stimulus)/response paradigms) despite overwhelming evidence, both logical and empirical, of its inadequacy. That editors allow such products to pass into the literature is, I guess, also par for the course.

The problem here is that the authors simply ignore one of the most basic facts about color perception, though it is highly relevant to their problem of interest. It is not clear from the text whether they are even aware of this fact, i.e. that the color perceived at any given location in the visual field is contingent on the light reflected both from the local segment of the scene and the areas in the scene as a whole, (both adjacent and non-adjacent), and more specifically, to the structural relationships (and their implications) of the light-reflecting areas in question. These empirical facts are not in the least in question, yet for Witzel et al (2016) they might not as well exist. They acknowledge only local contrast and adaptation as possible reasons for why similar local “color signals” can produce different color experiences:

“To clarify the role of metamer mismatching in color constancy, we investigated whether metamer mismatching predicts the variation of performance in color constancy that cannot be attributed to adaptation and local contrast.”

“In the present study, we tested different high-level (color categories) and sensory factors (metamer mismatching, sensory singularities, and cone ratios) that are likely to affect performance in color constancy beyond what is predicted by adaptation [for some reason “contrast” has been dropped].”

“However, it is known that color appearance and color naming can be influenced by context, such as local contrast and adaptation (Hansen et al., 2007).” Their conclusion that “a considerable degree of uncertainty (about 50%) in judging colors across illuminations is explained by the size of metamer mismatch volumes” is meaningless since results are condition-sensitive and the authors have not considered the relevant confounds (e.g. figure-ground structure of the visual field).

Bizarrely, they speculate that the unexplained “50%” of the failures of color constancy “beyond what is predicted by adaptation…may be rather the result of linguistic categorization.” Anything but consider the alternative that is well-known and rather well-understood. (They also considered the bizarre notion of the role of “color singularities” i.e. that the visual system “maps the sensory signal that results from looking directly at the light of the illumination (illuminant signal).” Given that their stimuli are pictorial, I don’t even know how to interpret their use of the term color singularity. At any rate there is no such illumination signal, as has been proven both logically and empirically (it would, for example, eliminate the possibility of pictorial lighting effects).

The presence of such articles in the vision science literature is mind-boggling.

On 2016 Dec 13, Lydia Maniatis commented:

None

On 2016 Dec 13, Lydia Maniatis commented:

None

On 2016 Dec 13, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Witzel et al’s (2016) degree of ignorance of the fundamentals of their chosen topic is capable of disconcerting even the most jaded observer of the vision literature (me). Intentionally or not, it reflects the tenacious, subterranean grip of the behaviorist tradition (consideration only of simple signal (stimulus)/response paradigms) despite overwhelming evidence, both logical and empirical, of its inadequacy. That editors allow such products to pass into the literature is, I guess, also par for the course.

The problem here is that the authors simply ignore one of the most basic facts about color perception, though it is highly relevant to their problem of interest. It is not clear from the text whether they are even aware of this fact, i.e. that the color perceived at any given location in the visual field is contingent on the light reflected both from the local segment of the scene and the areas in the scene as a whole, (both adjacent and non-adjacent), and more specifically, to the structural relationships (and their implications) of the light-reflecting areas in question. These empirical facts are not in the least in question, yet for Witzel et al (2016) they might not as well exist. They acknowledge only local contrast and adaptation as possible reasons for why similar local “color signals” can produce different color experiences:

“To clarify the role of metamer mismatching in color constancy, we investigated whether metamer mismatching predicts the variation of performance in color constancy that cannot be attributed to adaptation and local contrast.”

“In the present study, we tested different high-level (color categories) and sensory factors (metamer mismatching, sensory singularities, and cone ratios) that are likely to affect performance in color constancy beyond what is predicted by adaptation [for some reason “contrast” has been dropped].”

“However, it is known that color appearance and color naming can be influenced by context, such as local contrast and adaptation (Hansen et al., 2007).” Their conclusion that “a considerable degree of uncertainty (about 50%) in judging colors across illuminations is explained by the size of metamer mismatch volumes” is meaningless since results are condition-sensitive and the authors have not considered the relevant confounds (e.g. figure-ground structure of the visual field).

Bizarrely, they speculate that the unexplained “50%” of the failures of color constancy “beyond what is predicted by adaptation…may be rather the result of linguistic categorization.” Anything but consider the alternative that is well-known and rather well-understood. (They also considered the bizarre notion of the role of “color singularities” i.e. that the visual system “maps the sensory signal that results from looking directly at the light of the illumination (illuminant signal).” Given that their stimuli are pictorial, I don’t even know how to interpret their use of the term color singularity. At any rate there is no such illumination signal, as has been proven both logically and empirically (it would, for example, eliminate the possibility of pictorial lighting effects).

The presence of such articles in the vision science literature is mind-boggling.