Color appearance model incorporating contrast adaptation—Implications for individual differences in color vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Color appearance models use standard color matching functions to derive colorimetric information from spectral radiometric measurements of a visual environment, and they process that information to predict color perceptual attributes such as hue, chroma and lightness. That processing is usually done by equations with fixed numerical coefficients that were predetermined to yield optimal agreement for a given standard observer. Here we address the well-known fact that, among color-normal observers, there are significant differences of color matching functions. These cause disagreements between individuals as to whether certain colors match, an important effect that is often called observer metamerism. Yet how these individual sensitivity differences translate into differences in perceptual metrics is not fully addressed by many appearance models. It might seem that appearance could be predicted by substituting an individual's color matching functions into an otherwise-unchanged color appearance model, but this is problematic because the model's coefficients were not optimized for the new observer. Here we explore a solution guided by the idea that processes of adaptation in the visual system tend to compensate color perception for differences in cone responses and consequent color matching functions. For this purpose, we developed a simple color appearance model that uses only a few numerical coefficients, yet accurately predicts the perceptual attributes of Munsell samples under a selected standard lighting condition. We then added a feedback loop to automatically adjust the model coefficients, in response to switching between cone fundamentals simulating different observers and color matching functions. This adjustment is intended to model long term contrast adaptation in the vision system by maintaining average overall color contrast levels. Incorporating this adaptation principle into color appearance models could allow better assessments of displays and illumination systems, to help improve color appearances for most observers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".