Is melanopsin activation affecting large field color-matching functions?

Pablo A. Barrionuevo; Clemente Paz Filgueira; Dingcai Cao

doi:10.1364/JOSAA.457223

Journal of the Optical Society of America A
Vol. 39,
Issue 6,
pp. 1104-1110
(2022)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.457223

Is melanopsin activation affecting large field color-matching functions?

Pablo A. Barrionuevo, Clemente Paz Filgueira, and Dingcai Cao

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Pablo A. Barrionuevo, Clemente Paz Filgueira, and Dingcai Cao, "Is melanopsin activation affecting large field color-matching functions?," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 39, 1104-1110 (2022)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Check for updates

Abstract

Color theory is based on the exclusive activation of cones. However, since the discovery of melanopsin expressing cells in the human retina, evidence of its intrusion in brightness and color vision is increasing. We aimed to assess if differences between peripheral or large field and foveal color matches can be accounted for by melanopsin activation or rod intrusion. Photopic color matches by young observers showed that differences between extrafoveal and foveal results cannot be explained by rod intrusion. Furthermore, statistical analyses on existing color-matching functions suggest a role of melanopsin activation, particularly, in large field $S$ fundamentals.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Evidence for an impact of melanopsin activation on unique white perception

Dingcai Cao, Adam Chang, and Shaoyan Gai
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 35(4) B287-B291 (2018)

Cone and melanopsin contributions to human brightness estimation

Andrew J. Zele, Prakash Adhikari, Beatrix Feigl, and Dingcai Cao
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 35(4) B19-B25 (2018)

Relative contributions of melanopsin to brightness discrimination when hue and luminance also vary

Tanner DeLawyer, Sei-ichi Tsujimura, and Keizo Shinomori
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 37(4) A81-A88 (2020)

Previous Article Next Article

Supplementary Material (1)

Name	Description
Supplement 1	Supplementary material.

Data availability

Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.

Cited By

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.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (3)

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.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (5)

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.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (6)

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.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

	Smith and Pokorny’s			CIE
	S	M	L	S	M	L
R	−0.5261	1.8261	13.8136	−0.0002	0.0056	0.0302
G	0.6863	8.9103	12.2892	0.0003	0.0345	0.0279
B	77.9245	5.8297	7.0949	0.0521	0.0239	0.0177

	Smith and Pokorny’s
Field Size	Fundamentals			CIE Fundamentals
Conditions	S	M	L	S	M	L
Peripheral versus 10°	0.99	0.82	0.79	0.99	0.82	0.77
Large Central versus 10°	0.99	0.84	0.80	0.99	0.84	0.78
Small Central versus 10°	0.95	0.74	0.69	0.95	0.73	0.67
Small Central versus 2°	0.97	0.76	0.72	0.96	0.76	0.70

Model Comparisons	$Y_{B}$ : 10°, $Y_{A}$ : 2°, $χ^{2}$ ( $p$ -value)
Model Comparisons	S	M	L
$M_{2}$ versus $M_{1}$	13.46 ( $< 0.001$ )	34.66 ( $< 0.001$ )	2.9 (0.09)
$M_{3}$ versus $M_{1}$	18.8 ( $< 0.001$ )	14.08 ( $< 0.001$ )	1.55 (0.21)
$M_{4}$ versus $M_{1}$	19.68 ( $< 0.001$ )	97.12 ( $< 0.001$ )	63.07 ( $< 0.001$ )
$M_{4}$ versus $M_{2}$	6.22 ( $< 0.05$ )	62.46 ( $< 0.001$ )	60.17 ( $< 0.001$ )
$M_{4}$ versus $M_{3}$	0.89 (0.35)	83.04 ( $< 0.001$ )	61.53 ( $< 0.001$ )

Model Comparisons	$Y_{b}$ : 10°, $Y_{a}$ : 2°, $χ^{2}$ ( $p$ -value)
Model Comparisons	S	M	L
$M_{2}$ versus $M_{1}$	15.97 ( $< 0.001$ )	15.37 ( $< 0.001$ )	0.63 (0.43)
$M_{3}$ versus $M_{1}$	20.25 ( $< 0.001$ )	3.48 (0.06)	7.16 ( $< 0.05$ )
$M_{4}$ versus $M_{1}$	20.66 ( $< 0.001$ )	70.15 ( $< 0.001$ )	47.14 ( $< 0.001$ )
$M_{4}$ versus $M_{2}$	4.69 ( $< 0.05$ )	54.78 ( $< 0.001$ )	46.5 ( $< 0.001$ )
$M_{4}$ versus $M_{3}$	0.41 (0.52)	66.67 ( $< 0.001$ )	39.97( $< 0.001$ )

Model Comparisons	$Y_{b}$ : Large Central Data, $Y_{a}$ : 10° Computed, $χ^{2}$ ( $p$ -value)
Model Comparisons	S	M	L
$M_{2}$ versus $M_{1}$	7.96 ( $< 0.001$ )	12.35 ( $< 0.001$ )	13.71( $< 0.001$ )
$M_{3}$ versus $M_{1}$	6.5 ( $< 0.05$ )	11.85 ( $< 0.001$ )	15.53 ( $< 0.001$ )
$M_{4}$ versus $M_{1}$	8.08 ( $< 0.05$ )	13.47 ( $< 0.01$ )	15.6 ( $< 0.001$ )
$M_{4}$ versus $M_{2}$	0.12 (0.73)	1.12 (0.29)	1.9 (0.19)
$M_{4}$ versus $M_{3}$	1.58 (0.21)	1.62 (0.2)	0.07 (0.79)

Abstract

Supplementary Material (1)

Data availability

Cited By

Figures (3)

Tables (5)

Equations (6)

Journal of the Optical Society of America A