Visual assessments of white samples are evaluated. The range of individual hue preferences is mapped out, but no explanation can be presented. The individual differences in perceiving the contribution of luminance to whiteness are also investigated. Most subjects agree in assessing the whiteness of neutral bluish white samples. High correlation is found between the visual assessments of commercial whites and the whiteness calculated by linear whiteness formulas.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
Average Number of Circular Triads Resulting from Visual Assessments of Whiteness by Pair Comparison
Sample group
Subjects
A
B
C
Mean
All assessments
193
5.4
4.6
5.8
5.3
Subjects
≥ 0.9
98
2.3
1.7
2.2
2.1
Subjects
< 0.9
95
8.7
7.7
9.5
8.6
In daylight
110
5.6
5.0
6.0
5.5
In artificial light
83
5.3
4.2
5.6
5.0
Table II
Coefficients of Concord Characterizing the Rank Distributions Allotted to the Samples by Various Groups of Subjects and by Different Techniques of Assessment
Pair comparison ranking
Subjects
193
110
83
98
95
80
Sample no.
All
Daylight
Artificial light
More
Less
All
Consistent
Group A
40
0.58
0.63
0.53
0.60
0.57
0.42
16
0.52
0.48
0.57
0.53
0.50
0.33
12
0.49
0.51
0.47
0.53
0.49
0.41
46
0.47
0.43
0.52
0.41
0.56
0.29
10
0.42
0.43
0.45
0.51
0.35
0.47
1
0.32
0.35
0.28
0.38
0.35
0.34
50
0.26
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.49
3
0.08
0.12
0.05
0.04
0.14
0.23
53
0.03
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.05
0.62
26
−0.19
−0.26
−0.04
−0.28
−0.09
−0.08
Mean
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.30
0.32
0.35
Group B
18
0.47
0.47
0.48
0.51
0.48
0.58
13
0.43
0.41
0.46
0.46
0.42
0.46
27
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.46
0.35
0.52
8
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.34
0.39
0.62
19
0.37
0.40
0.32
0.40
0.38
0.36
43
0.34
0.30
0.40
0.35
0.36
0.37
37
0.24
0.27
0.20
0.25
0.38
0.39
7
0.11
0.20
−0.01
0.13
0.17
0.19
23
0.06
0.15
−0.05
0.11
0.20
0.31
54
−0.28
−0.29
−0.25
−0.43
−0.01
0.67
Mean
0.25
0.27
0.23
0.26
0.31
0.45
Group C
15
0.46
0.47
0.44
0.47
0.44
0.26
9
0.34
0.37
0.32
0.29
0.40
0.28
20
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.18
0.26
0.23
35
0.20
0.20
0.24
0.22
0.34
0.26
5
0.18
0.25
0.10
0.21
0.15
0.06
38
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.25
0.11
30
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.26
0.07
21
0.02
0.09
−0.07
0.12
0.17
0.03
6
−0.04
−0.08
0.02
−0.10
0.04
−0.06
56
−0.48
−0.51
−0.43
−0.74
−0.11
0.49
Mean
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.22
0.17
Table III
Correlation Coefficients and Increments of the Squares Determined in Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression Between the Coefficients of Concord κ of the Pairs and the Differences of the Samples in Tint ΔT and in the Components ΔC and ΔY of Whiteness ΔW = ΔC + ΔY
193 Pair comparisons
80 Rankings
−ρ
Δρ2
−ρ
Δρ2
ΔT
0.71
0.50
0.18
0.03
ΔC
0.29
0.08
0.22
0.05
ΔY
0.16
0.02
0.22
0.04
Total
0.77
0.60
0.35
0.12
Table IV
Hue Preference angles ϕ of Linear Whiteness Formulas Determined by Multiple Linear Regression of Scaled Means of Whiteness Assessments by Pair Comparison of 193 Subjects vs the Colorimetric Data of the Samples
Quintile
Mean hue preference index
Hue preference angle ϕ found with sample group
A
B
C
1.
−5.9
−72
−72
−89
2.
−3.5
−50
−60
−86
3.
−1.5
7
−23
−45
4.
1.1
44
24
44
5.
4.8
71
67
82
All
−1.0
18
−22
−35
Table V
Distribution of the Hue Preference Index p in Various Groups of Subjects
Subjects
Mean hue preference index p
Coefficient of concord κ
Ranking
80
−3.0
0.47
Pair comparison
193
−1.0
0.20
In daylight
110
−0.6
0.22
In artificial light
83
−1.4
0.20
By experts
≥ 0.9
98
−0.5
0.14
By subjects
< 0.9
95
−1.4
0.30
In Argentine
10
1.5
0.27
France
19
−3.2
0.31
Germany
60
−1.0
0.22
Sweden
10
−2.7
0.52
Switzerland
51
1.0
0.33
United Kingdom
20
−1.9
0.04
United States
23
−3.0
0.49
Table VI
Comparison of Hue Preference with Slight Deviations from Normal Color Vision and with Red/Green Color Preference in Two Groups of Subjects
Subject
Hue preference index p
Anomaloscope G/R ratio
R/G preference index q
Bayer
51
−7.22
0.95
38
−5.83
1.03
36
−5.39
1.03
42
−4.00
1.00
50
−3.50
1.11
52
−2.67
1.00
44
−2.22
0.95
40
−2.00
1.17
34
−1.33
1.03
43
−0.72
0.95
39
−0.15
1.05
45
1.33
1.05
35
1.56
0.87
37
1.56
0.90
47
5.28
0.90
46
5.61
0.97
48
6.50
0.77
CIBA-GEIGY
22
−4.67
0.92
0.00
31
−4.11
1.15
−0.75
16
−3.22
0.88
−0.50
29
−2.55
0.95
0.50
30
−2.55
0.86
0.50
21
−2.00
1.17
−0.25
11
−1.61
1.07
0.25
28
−1.56
0.85
−0.50
5
−1.11
1.31
24
−0.89
0.91
2
−0.56
1.08
−0.25
8
−0.28
0.86
0.50
D 4
0.22
5.28
0.50
27
0.33
0.86
−0.25
6
0.83
1.32
0.50
P 10
0.83
0.48
0.25
3
0.89
1.00
−0.50
32
0.89
0.99
33
0.89
0.96
−0.25
13
1.17
1.20
0.75
15
2.28
0.73
0.50
23
2.39
0.96
0.25
12
2.83
0.98
−0.25
7
3.17
1.08
−0.50
17
3.50
0.96
0.00
1
3.72
0.50
19
5.95
1.08
0.75
9
6.11
0.90
−0.25
26
6.33
1.12
0.75
Table VII
Kendall’s τ and Observed Significance Level Prob0 Correlating the Hue Preference Index p with the Anomaloscope Ratio R/G and with the Red/Green Color Preference Index q, Respectively
Slope ω = (∂W/∂s)/(∂W/∂Y) of Planes of Constant Whiteness Determined with Samples of Approximately Equal Whiteness but Different Luminous Reflectance: Rows E and A in Fig. 6
Subjects
Samples
Mean ω
M50S
1–3
732
M27SD
1–4
780
M38E
1–4
796
M36N
1–4
1027
M46N
1–5
1043
M57SP
1–4
1101
M63E
1–4
1127
M39S
1–4
1196
M66S
1–4
1294
M41S
1–5
1438
M32N
1–6
1527
M29E
1–5
1643
F24E
1–4
1828
M28E
1–5
2376
M56N
1–5
2506
M37E
1–4
2679
F25N
1–4
2757
F26N
2–4
3666
M30E
1–5
3813
F26N
1–5
4514
M26N
2–5
4880
M52E
1–4
5024
M63S
1–5
6012
M31S
2–5
33054
F43E
1–5
47393
M36E
1–6
50731
M46E
2–6
122142
M39E
2–6
−36529
M33E
2–6
−5851
M46E
2–6
−1861
23
1
1298
30
2
1785
30
3
2309
29
4
2662
17
5
12188
6
6
−5101
8N
all
1976
8S
all
1321
14E
all
3619
All
all
2302
Note: subjects are characterized by sex and age. P = protanope, D = deuteranope, E = experts professionally assessing FWAs, S = subjects having some notion of whiteness, and N = naive inexperienced subjects. Average values of ω are harmonic means, since ω → ∞ for Δs → 0.
Tables (9)
Table I
Average Number of Circular Triads Resulting from Visual Assessments of Whiteness by Pair Comparison
Sample group
Subjects
A
B
C
Mean
All assessments
193
5.4
4.6
5.8
5.3
Subjects
≥ 0.9
98
2.3
1.7
2.2
2.1
Subjects
< 0.9
95
8.7
7.7
9.5
8.6
In daylight
110
5.6
5.0
6.0
5.5
In artificial light
83
5.3
4.2
5.6
5.0
Table II
Coefficients of Concord Characterizing the Rank Distributions Allotted to the Samples by Various Groups of Subjects and by Different Techniques of Assessment
Pair comparison ranking
Subjects
193
110
83
98
95
80
Sample no.
All
Daylight
Artificial light
More
Less
All
Consistent
Group A
40
0.58
0.63
0.53
0.60
0.57
0.42
16
0.52
0.48
0.57
0.53
0.50
0.33
12
0.49
0.51
0.47
0.53
0.49
0.41
46
0.47
0.43
0.52
0.41
0.56
0.29
10
0.42
0.43
0.45
0.51
0.35
0.47
1
0.32
0.35
0.28
0.38
0.35
0.34
50
0.26
0.27
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.49
3
0.08
0.12
0.05
0.04
0.14
0.23
53
0.03
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.05
0.62
26
−0.19
−0.26
−0.04
−0.28
−0.09
−0.08
Mean
0.30
0.30
0.32
0.30
0.32
0.35
Group B
18
0.47
0.47
0.48
0.51
0.48
0.58
13
0.43
0.41
0.46
0.46
0.42
0.46
27
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.46
0.35
0.52
8
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.34
0.39
0.62
19
0.37
0.40
0.32
0.40
0.38
0.36
43
0.34
0.30
0.40
0.35
0.36
0.37
37
0.24
0.27
0.20
0.25
0.38
0.39
7
0.11
0.20
−0.01
0.13
0.17
0.19
23
0.06
0.15
−0.05
0.11
0.20
0.31
54
−0.28
−0.29
−0.25
−0.43
−0.01
0.67
Mean
0.25
0.27
0.23
0.26
0.31
0.45
Group C
15
0.46
0.47
0.44
0.47
0.44
0.26
9
0.34
0.37
0.32
0.29
0.40
0.28
20
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.18
0.26
0.23
35
0.20
0.20
0.24
0.22
0.34
0.26
5
0.18
0.25
0.10
0.21
0.15
0.06
38
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.25
0.11
30
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.26
0.07
21
0.02
0.09
−0.07
0.12
0.17
0.03
6
−0.04
−0.08
0.02
−0.10
0.04
−0.06
56
−0.48
−0.51
−0.43
−0.74
−0.11
0.49
Mean
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.22
0.17
Table III
Correlation Coefficients and Increments of the Squares Determined in Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression Between the Coefficients of Concord κ of the Pairs and the Differences of the Samples in Tint ΔT and in the Components ΔC and ΔY of Whiteness ΔW = ΔC + ΔY
193 Pair comparisons
80 Rankings
−ρ
Δρ2
−ρ
Δρ2
ΔT
0.71
0.50
0.18
0.03
ΔC
0.29
0.08
0.22
0.05
ΔY
0.16
0.02
0.22
0.04
Total
0.77
0.60
0.35
0.12
Table IV
Hue Preference angles ϕ of Linear Whiteness Formulas Determined by Multiple Linear Regression of Scaled Means of Whiteness Assessments by Pair Comparison of 193 Subjects vs the Colorimetric Data of the Samples
Quintile
Mean hue preference index
Hue preference angle ϕ found with sample group
A
B
C
1.
−5.9
−72
−72
−89
2.
−3.5
−50
−60
−86
3.
−1.5
7
−23
−45
4.
1.1
44
24
44
5.
4.8
71
67
82
All
−1.0
18
−22
−35
Table V
Distribution of the Hue Preference Index p in Various Groups of Subjects
Subjects
Mean hue preference index p
Coefficient of concord κ
Ranking
80
−3.0
0.47
Pair comparison
193
−1.0
0.20
In daylight
110
−0.6
0.22
In artificial light
83
−1.4
0.20
By experts
≥ 0.9
98
−0.5
0.14
By subjects
< 0.9
95
−1.4
0.30
In Argentine
10
1.5
0.27
France
19
−3.2
0.31
Germany
60
−1.0
0.22
Sweden
10
−2.7
0.52
Switzerland
51
1.0
0.33
United Kingdom
20
−1.9
0.04
United States
23
−3.0
0.49
Table VI
Comparison of Hue Preference with Slight Deviations from Normal Color Vision and with Red/Green Color Preference in Two Groups of Subjects
Subject
Hue preference index p
Anomaloscope G/R ratio
R/G preference index q
Bayer
51
−7.22
0.95
38
−5.83
1.03
36
−5.39
1.03
42
−4.00
1.00
50
−3.50
1.11
52
−2.67
1.00
44
−2.22
0.95
40
−2.00
1.17
34
−1.33
1.03
43
−0.72
0.95
39
−0.15
1.05
45
1.33
1.05
35
1.56
0.87
37
1.56
0.90
47
5.28
0.90
46
5.61
0.97
48
6.50
0.77
CIBA-GEIGY
22
−4.67
0.92
0.00
31
−4.11
1.15
−0.75
16
−3.22
0.88
−0.50
29
−2.55
0.95
0.50
30
−2.55
0.86
0.50
21
−2.00
1.17
−0.25
11
−1.61
1.07
0.25
28
−1.56
0.85
−0.50
5
−1.11
1.31
24
−0.89
0.91
2
−0.56
1.08
−0.25
8
−0.28
0.86
0.50
D 4
0.22
5.28
0.50
27
0.33
0.86
−0.25
6
0.83
1.32
0.50
P 10
0.83
0.48
0.25
3
0.89
1.00
−0.50
32
0.89
0.99
33
0.89
0.96
−0.25
13
1.17
1.20
0.75
15
2.28
0.73
0.50
23
2.39
0.96
0.25
12
2.83
0.98
−0.25
7
3.17
1.08
−0.50
17
3.50
0.96
0.00
1
3.72
0.50
19
5.95
1.08
0.75
9
6.11
0.90
−0.25
26
6.33
1.12
0.75
Table VII
Kendall’s τ and Observed Significance Level Prob0 Correlating the Hue Preference Index p with the Anomaloscope Ratio R/G and with the Red/Green Color Preference Index q, Respectively
Slope ω = (∂W/∂s)/(∂W/∂Y) of Planes of Constant Whiteness Determined with Samples of Approximately Equal Whiteness but Different Luminous Reflectance: Rows E and A in Fig. 6
Subjects
Samples
Mean ω
M50S
1–3
732
M27SD
1–4
780
M38E
1–4
796
M36N
1–4
1027
M46N
1–5
1043
M57SP
1–4
1101
M63E
1–4
1127
M39S
1–4
1196
M66S
1–4
1294
M41S
1–5
1438
M32N
1–6
1527
M29E
1–5
1643
F24E
1–4
1828
M28E
1–5
2376
M56N
1–5
2506
M37E
1–4
2679
F25N
1–4
2757
F26N
2–4
3666
M30E
1–5
3813
F26N
1–5
4514
M26N
2–5
4880
M52E
1–4
5024
M63S
1–5
6012
M31S
2–5
33054
F43E
1–5
47393
M36E
1–6
50731
M46E
2–6
122142
M39E
2–6
−36529
M33E
2–6
−5851
M46E
2–6
−1861
23
1
1298
30
2
1785
30
3
2309
29
4
2662
17
5
12188
6
6
−5101
8N
all
1976
8S
all
1321
14E
all
3619
All
all
2302
Note: subjects are characterized by sex and age. P = protanope, D = deuteranope, E = experts professionally assessing FWAs, S = subjects having some notion of whiteness, and N = naive inexperienced subjects. Average values of ω are harmonic means, since ω → ∞ for Δs → 0.