Methods for determining equiluminance in terms of L/M cone ratios
Methods for determining equiluminance in terms of L/M cone ratios
复制标题
DOI：
10.1167/jov.20.4.22
复制
发表时间：
2020-04-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Eskew, Rhea T., Jr.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
He, Jingyi;Cruz, Yesenia Taveras;Eskew, Rhea T., Jr.
异色闪烁光度法（HFP）、最小运动（MM）和最小明显边界（MDB）设置通常用于确定亮度，这是两种色度的相对强度设置，理论上可以消除亮度或消色差心理物理机制的响应。这些设置被用来反映长(L)和中(M)波长锥对亮度的相对贡献，这在个体之间变化很大。本研究比较了HFP， MM和MDB使用不调制短(S)波长锥体的刺激，在实践和幼稚的观察者。MDB是在闪烁和稳定观看刺激下进行的。结果用圆锥对比空间的（Delta L/L, Delta M/M）平面表示。考虑到经验丰富的观察者和幼稚的观察者，MM和HFP都具有出色的受试者内精度和高测试重测信度，而HFP也具有低受试者间变异性。MDB任务不太可靠，也不太精确。与空间任务（MDB）相比，两个时间任务（HFP和MM）在等亮度下的平均L:M对比度较低，这可能与多种亮度机制的存在一致。总的来说，结果表明确定亮度的最佳方法是HFP， MM紧随其后。
Heterochromatic flicker photometry (HFP), minimum motion (MM), and minimally distinct border (MDB) settings have often been used to determine equiluminance, a relative intensity setting for two chromaticities that, in theory, eliminates the responses of a luminance or achromatic psychophysical mechanism. These settings have been taken to reflect the relative contribution of the long (L) and medium (M) wavelength cones to luminance, which varies widely across individuals. The present study compares HFP, MM, and MDB using stimuli that do not modulate the short (S) wavelength cones, in both practiced and naive observers. MDB was performed with both flashed and steadily viewed stimuli. Results are represented in the (Delta L/L, Delta M/M) plane of cone contrast space. Considering both practiced and naive observers, both MM and HFP had excellent within-subject precision and high test-retest reliability, whereas HFP also had low between-subject variability. The MDB tasks were less reliable and less precise. The mean L:M contrast ratios at equiluminance were lower for the two temporal tasks (HFP and MM) compared to the spatial tasks (MDB), perhaps consistent with the existence of multiple luminance mechanisms. Overall, the results suggest that the best method for determining equiluminance is HFP, with MM being a close second.