Opponent process

Last updated

The opponent process is a hypothesis of color vision that states that the human visual system interprets information about color by processing signals from the three types of photoreceptor cells in an antagonistic manner. The three types of cones are called L, M, and S. The names stand for "Long wavelength sensitive, "middle wavelength sensitive," and "short wavelength sensitive." The opponent-process theory implicates three opponent channels: L versus M, S versus (L+M), and a luminance channel (+ versus -). These cone-opponent mechanisms were at one time thought to be the neural substrate for a psycholological theory called Hering's Opponent Colors Theory, which calls for three psychologically important opponent color processes: red versus green, blue versus yellow, and black versus white (luminance). [1] The Opponent Colors Theory is named for the German physiologist Ewald Hering who proposed the idea in the late 19th century. Considerable physiological and behavioral evidence proves that the physiological cone opponent mechanisms do not constitute the neurobiological basis for Hering's Opponent Colors Theory. [2] .

Contents

Color theory

Complementary colors

When staring at a bright color for a while (e.g. red), then looking away at a white field, an afterimage is perceived, such that the original color will evoke its complementary color (cyan, in the case of red input). When complementary colors are combined or mixed, they "cancel each other out" and become neutral (white or gray). That is, complementary colors are never perceived as a mixture; there is no "greenish red" or "yellowish blue", despite claims to the contrary. The strongest color contrast a color can have is its complementary color. Complementary colors may also be called "opposite colors" and they were originally considered the primary evidence in support of Hering's Opponent Colors Theory. There are two fatal problems with this evidence. First, the complement of red is not green, as called for by Hering's theory; it is bluish-green. And second, there exists a complementary color for every color, so there is nothing special about the set of complementary pairs picked out by Hering's theory.

Unique hues

Opponent color pairs based on the NCS experiment, including black, white and the four unique hues Opponent colors.svg
Opponent color pairs based on the NCS experiment, including black, white and the four unique hues

The colors that define the extremes for each opponent channel are called unique hues, as opposed to composite (mixed) hues. Ewald Hering first defined the unique hues as red, green, blue, and yellow, and based them on the concept that these colors could not be simultaneously perceived. For example, a color cannot appear both red and green. [3] These definitions have been experimentally refined and are represented today by average hue angles of 353° (carmine red), 128° (cobalt green), 228° (cobalt blue), 58° (yellow). [4]

The unique hues are a defining feature of many psychological color spaces, but there is substantial evidence showing that the unique hues are not hard wired in the nervous system, contrary to stipulations of Hering's Opponent Colors Theory. Unique hues can differ between individuals and are often used in psychophysical research to measure variations in color perception due to color-vision deficiencies or color adaptation. [5] While there is considerable inter-subject variability when defining unique hues experimentally, [4] an individual's unique hues are very consistent, to within a few nanometers. [6]

Physiological basis

Relation to LMS color space

Diagram of the opponent process Diagram of the opponent process.png
Diagram of the opponent process

The trichromatic is in conflict with Hering's Opponent Colors Theory, although it is compatible with a physiological opponent process that compares the outputs of the different classes of cone types. The poles of these cone opponent mechanisms do not correspond to the unique hues of Hering's Opponent Colors Theory and unlike the unique hues, have no priviledge in color perception.

Most humans have three different cone cells in their retinas that facilitate trichromatic color vision. Colors are determined by the proportional excitation of these three cone types, i.e. their quantum catch. The levels of excitation of each cone type are the parameters that define LMS color space. To calculate the opponent process tristimulus values from the LMS color space, the cone excitations must be compared: [7]

Most mammals have no L cone (the primate L cone arose from a gene duplication of the M cone opsin gene). These mammals still show two kinds of opponent channels in their retinal ganglion cells: the acromatic channel and the blue-yellow opponancy channel. [8]

Cone opponent mechanisms are encoded in the retina

Spatial contrast sensitivity functions for luminance and chromatic contrast. Opponent process contrast sensitivity functions.svg
Spatial contrast sensitivity functions for luminance and chromatic contrast.

The output of different types of cones are compared by cells in the retina including retina bipolar cells (which compare signals from L and M cones) and bistratified retinal ganglion cells (which compare S cone signals with L and M cone signals). The output of bipolar cells is relayed to the visual cortex by the retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) by way of a thalamic relay station called the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) of the thalamus. Much of the scientific knowledge of retinal ganglion cell physiology was obtained by neural recordings of cells in the LGN.

The cone-opponent mechanisms in the retina and LGN represent a fundamental physiological opponent process but do not represent the unique hues (or Hering's Opponent Colors Theory). For example, the colors that best elicit responses the bistratified S-(L+M)-opponent neurons are best described as purplish (or lavendar) and lime-green, not "blue" and "yellow". The neurons are sometimes referred to as "blue–yellow" neurons, but this is a historical artifact dating to the time when it was thought that Hering's Opponent Colors Theory was hardwired by the retina and the mismatch between the colors to which they are optimally tuned and Hering's Opponent Colors was overlooked. Cone opponent mechanisms exist in the retinas of many mammals, including monkeys, mice, and cats. [8] In primates, the LGN contains three major classes of layers: [7]

Other mammals such as cats also have three cell types denoted as X (magno), Y (parvo), and W (konio). The W type is beyond most doubt homologous to the primate K type. There are some subtle differences between the M and X types as well as the Y and P types to make the correspondence unclear. [7]

Advantage

Transmitting information in opponent-channel color space could be advantageous over transmitting it in LMS color space ("raw" signals from each cone type). There is some overlap in the wavelengths of light to which the three types of cones (L for long-wave, M for medium-wave, and S for short-wave light) respond, so it is more efficient for the visual system (from a perspective of dynamic range) to record differences between the responses of cones, rather than each type of cone's individual response.[ citation needed ][ dubious – discuss ]

Hurvich and Jameson argues that the use of opponent-channel color space would increase color contrast, making the information easier to process by later stages of vision. [9]

Color blindness

Color blindness can be classified by the cone cell that is affected (protan, deutan, tritan) or by the opponent channel that is affected (red–green or blue–yellow). In either case, the channel can either be inactive (in the case of dichromacy) or have a lower dynamic range (in the case of anomalous trichromacy). For example, individuals with deuteranopia see little difference between the red and green unique hues.

History

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe first studied the physiological effect of opposed colors in his Theory of Colours in 1810. [10] Goethe arranged his color wheel symmetrically "for the colours diametrically opposed to each other in this diagram are those which reciprocally evoke each other in the eye. Thus, yellow demands purple; orange, blue; red, green; and vice versa: Thus again all intermediate gradations reciprocally evoke each other." [11] [12]

Ewald Hering proposed opponent color theory in 1892. [3] He thought that the colors red, yellow, green, and blue are special in that any other color can be described as a mix of them, and that they exist in opposite pairs. That is, either red or green is perceived and never greenish-red: Even though yellow is a mixture of red and green in the RGB color theory, humans do not perceive it as such.

Hering's new theory ran counter to the prevailing Young–Helmholtz theory (trichromatic theory), first proposed by Thomas Young in 1802 and developed by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1850. The two theories seemed irreconcilable until 1925 when Erwin Schrödinger was able to reconcile the two theories and show that they can be complementary. [13]

Psychophysical investigations

In 1957, Leo Hurvich and Dorothea Jameson claimed to provide apsychophysical validation for Hering's theory. Their method was called hue cancellation. Hue cancellation experiments start with a color (e.g. yellow) and attempt to determine how much of the opponent color (e.g. blue) of one of the starting color's components must be added to reach the neutral point. [9] [14] . The problem with the method of Hurvich and Jameson is that it defined the unique hues as the colors used in the cancelation; it did not test whether these colors are unique. So, participants were only ever asked to assess the proportion of the four colors (red, green, blue, yellow) in mixtures; they were never asked whether these four colors are the only possible set of primaries as would be required for a scientifically valid test of Hering's Opponent Colors Theory. Bosten and colleagues showed in 2014 that other colors can be used as primaries.

In 1959, Gunnar Svaetichin and MacNichol [15] recorded from the retinae of fish and reported of three distinct types of cells:

Svaetichin and MacNichol called the chromaticity cells yellow–blue and red–green opponent color cells, following the assumption of the day that Hering's Opponent Colors Theory was hardwired in the brain.

Similar chromatically or spectrally opposed cells, often incorporating spatial opponency (e.g. red "on" center and green "off" surround), were found in the vertebrate retina and lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) through the 1950s and 1960s by De Valois et al., [16] Wiesel and Hubel, [17] and others. [18] [19] [20] [21]

Following Gunnar Svaetichin's lead, the cells were widely called opponent color cells: red–green and yellow–blue. Over the next three decades, spectrally opposed cells continued to be reported in primate retinae and LGN. [22] [23] [24] [25] A variety of terms are used in the literature to describe these cells, including chromatically opposed or chromatically opponent, spectrally opposed or spectrally opponent, opponent colour, colour opponent, opponent response, and simply, opponent.

In other fields

Others have applied the idea of opposing stimulations beyond visual systems, described in the article on opponent-process theory . In 1967, Rod Grigg extended the concept to reflect a wide range of opponent processes in biological systems. [26] In 1970, Solomon and Corbit expanded Hurvich and Jameson's general neurological opponent process model to explain emotion, drug addiction, and work motivation. [27] [28]

Applications

The opponent color theory can be applied to computer vision and implemented as the Gaussian color model [29] and the natural-vision-processing model . [30] [31] [32]

Criticism and the complementary color cells

Much controversy exists over whether opponent-processing theory is the best way to explain color vision. A few experiments have been conducted involving image stabilization (where one experiences border loss) that produced results that suggest participants have seen "impossible" colors, or color combinations humans should not be able to see under the opponent-processing theory. However, many criticize that this result may just be illusionary experiences. Critics and researchers have instead started to turn to explain color vision through references to retinal mechanisms, rather than opponent processing, which happens in the brain's visual cortex.

As single-cell recordings accumulated, it became clear to many physiologists and psychophysicists that opponent colors did not satisfactorily account for single-cell spectrally opposed responses. For instance, Jameson and D’Andrade [33] analyzed opponent-colors theory and found the unique hues did not match the spectrally opposed responses. De Valois himself [34] summed it up: "Although we, like others, were most impressed with finding opponent cells, in accord with Hering's suggestions, when the Zeitgeist at the time was strongly opposed to the notion, the earliest recordings revealed a discrepancy between the Hering–Hurvich–Jameson opponent perceptual channels and the response characteristics of opponent cells in the macaque lateral geniculate nucleus." Valberg [35] recalls that "it became common among neurophysiologists to use colour terms when referring to opponent cells as in the notations red-ON cells, green-OFF cells ... In the debate ... some psychophysicists were happy to see what they believed to be opponency confirmed at an objective, physiological level. Consequently, little hesitation was shown in relating the unique and polar color pairs directly to cone opponency. Despite evidence to the contrary ... textbooks have, up to this day, repeated the misconception of relating unique hue perception directly to peripheral cone opponent processes. The analogy with Hering's hypothesis has been carried even further so as to imply that each color in the opponent pair of unique colors could be identified with either excitation or inhibition of one and the same type of opponent cell." Webster et al. [36] and Wuerger et al. [37] have conclusively re-affirmed that single-cell spectrally opposed responses do not align with unique-hue opponent colors.

More recent experiments show that the relationship between the responses of single "color-opponent" cells and perceptual color opponency is even more complex than supposed. Experiments by Zeki et al., [38] using the Land Color Mondrian, have shown that when normal observers view, for example, a green surface which is part of a multi-colored scene and which reflects more green than red light it looks green and its afterimage is magenta. But when the same green surface reflects more red than green light, it still looks green (because of the operation of color constancy mechanisms) and its afterimage is still perceived as magenta. This is true also of other colors and may be summarized by saying that, just as surfaces retain their color categories in spite of wide-ranging fluctuations in the wavelength-energy composition of the light reflected from them, the color of the afterimage produced by viewing surfaces also retains its color category and is therefore also independent of the wavelength-energy composition of the light reflected from the patch being viewed. There is, in other words, a constancy to the colors of afterimages. This serves to emphasize further the need to search more deeply into the relationship between the responses of single opponent cells and perceptual color opponency on the one hand and the need for a better understanding of whether physiological opponent processes generate perceptual opponent colors or whether the latter are generated after colors are generated.

In 2013, Pridmore [39] argued that most red–green cells reported in the literature in fact code the red–cyan colors. Thus, the cells are coding complementary colors instead of opponent colors. Pridmore reported also of green–magenta cells in the retina and V1. He thus argued that the red–green and blue–yellow cells should be instead called green–magenta, red–cyan and blue–yellow complementary cells. An example of the complementary process can be experienced by staring at a red (or green) square for forty seconds, and then immediately looking at a white sheet of paper. The observer then perceives a cyan (or magenta) square on the blank sheet. This complementary color afterimage is easily explained by the trichromatic color theory (Young–Helmholtz theory); in the opponent-process theory, fatigue of pathways promoting red produces the illusion of a cyan square. [40]

Mouland et al. (2021) showed that the subtraction step of the blue-yellow process happens outside of the retina, in the LGN. Commenting on this result, Schwartz wrote "a common pastime of retinal neuroscientists is pointing out that many visual computations studied in the brain, like direction and orientation selectivity, already occur in the retina (and I am guiltier than most in this regard), but in the case of color-opponency in mice, perhaps we should cede one computation to the brain." [8]

A 2023 paper by Conway, Malik-Moraleda, and Gibson [2] provided a comprehensive "review [of] the psychological and physiological evidence for Opponent-Colors Theory" to support the now widely accepted conclusion that "the theory is wrong". [2]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Michael Foster (1891). A Text-book of physiology. Lea Bros. & Co. p.  921.
  2. 1 2 3 Conway, Bevil R.; Malik-Moraleda, Saima; Gibson, Edward (June 30, 2023). "Color appearance and the end of Hering's Opponent-Colors Theory". Cell . 27 (9): 791–804. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.003. PMC   10527909 . PMID   37394292.
  3. 1 2 Hering E, 1964. Outlines of a Theory of the Light Sense. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  4. 1 2 Miyahara, E. (2003). "Focal colors and unique hues". Perceptual and Motor Skills. 97 (3_suppl): 1038–1042. doi:10.2466/pms.2003.97.3f.1038. PMC   1404500 . PMID   15002843.
  5. ↑ Tregillus, Katherine (2019). "Long-term adaptation to color". Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 30: 116–121. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.07.005 . S2CID   201042565.
  6. ↑ Mollon, J. D. (1997). "On the nature of unique hues". John Dalton's Colour Vision Legacy: 381–392.
  7. 1 2 3 Ghodrati, Masoud; Khaligh-Razavi, Seyed-Mahdi; Lehky, Sidney R. (September 2017). "Towards building a more complex view of the lateral geniculate nucleus: Recent advances in understanding its role". Progress in Neurobiology. 156: 214–255. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.06.002. hdl: 1721.1/120922 .
  8. 1 2 3 Schwartz, Gregory W. (August 2021). "Color vision: More than meets the eye". Current Biology. 31 (15): R948 –R950. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.044 .
  9. 1 2 Hurvich LM, Jameson D (November 1957). "An opponent-process theory of color vision". Psychological Review. 64, Part 1 (6): 384–404. doi:10.1037/h0041403. PMID   13505974. S2CID   27613265.
  10. ↑ "Goethe's Color Theory". Vision science and the emergence of modern art. Archived from the original on 2008-09-16.
  11. ↑ Goethe J (1810). Theory of Colours, paragraph #50.
  12. ↑ "Goethe on Colours". The Art-Union. 2 (18): 107. July 15, 1840. Archived from the original on December 21, 2017.
  13. ↑ Niall, Keith K. (1988). "On the trichromatic and opponent-process theories: An article by E. Schrödinger". Spatial Vision. 3 (2): 79–95. doi:10.1163/156856888x00050. PMID   3153667.
  14. ↑ Wolfe JM, Kluender KR, Levi DM (2009). Sensation & Perception (third ed.). New York: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN   978-1-60535-875-8.
  15. ↑ Svaetichin G, Macnichol EF (November 1959). "Retinal mechanisms for chromatic and achromatic vision". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 74 (2): 385–404. Bibcode:1959NYASA..74..385S. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1958.tb39560.x. PMID   13627867. S2CID   27130943.
  16. ↑ De Valois RL, Smith CJ, Kitai ST, Karoly AJ (January 1958). "Response of single cells in monkey lateral geniculate nucleus to monochromatic light". Science. 127 (3292): 238–9. Bibcode:1958Sci...127..238D. doi:10.1126/science.127.3292.238. PMID   13495504.
  17. ↑ Wiesel TN, Hubel DH (November 1966). "Spatial and chromatic interactions in the lateral geniculate body of the rhesus monkey". Journal of Neurophysiology. 29 (6): 1115–56. doi:10.1152/jn.1966.29.6.1115. PMID   4961644.
  18. ↑ Wagner HG, Macnichol EF, Wolbarsht ML (April 1960). "Opponent Color Responses in Retinal Ganglion Cells". Science. 131 (3409): 1314. Bibcode:1960Sci...131.1314W. doi:10.1126/science.131.3409.1314. PMID   17784397. S2CID   46122073.
  19. ↑ Naka KI, Rushton WA (August 1966). "S-potentials from colour units in the retina of fish (Cyprinidae)". The Journal of Physiology. 185 (3): 536–55. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1966.sp008001. PMC   1395833 . PMID   5918058.
  20. ↑ Daw NW (November 1967). "Goldfish retina: organization for simultaneous color contrast". Science. 158 (3803): 942–4. Bibcode:1967Sci...158..942D. doi:10.1126/science.158.3803.942. PMID   6054169. S2CID   1108881.
  21. ↑ Byzov AL, Trifonov JA (July 1968). "The response to electric stimulation of horizontal cells in the carp retina". Vision Research. 8 (7): 817–22. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(68)90132-6. PMID   5664016.
  22. ↑ Gouras P, Zrenner E (January 1981). "Color coding in primate retina". Vision Research. 21 (11): 1591–8. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(81)90039-0. PMID   7336591. S2CID   46225236.
  23. ↑ Derrington AM, Krauskopf J, Lennie P (December 1984). "Chromatic mechanisms in lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque". The Journal of Physiology. 357 (1): 241–65. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1984.sp015499. PMC   1193257 . PMID   6512691.
  24. ↑ Reid RC, Shapley RM (April 1992). "Spatial structure of cone inputs to receptive fields in primate lateral geniculate nucleus". Nature. 356 (6371): 716–8. Bibcode:1992Natur.356..716R. doi:10.1038/356716a0. PMID   1570016. S2CID   22357719.
  25. ↑ Lankheet MJ, Lennie P, Krauskopf J (January 1998). "Distinctive characteristics of subclasses of red–green P-cells in LGN of macaque". Visual Neuroscience. 15 (1): 37–46. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.553.5684 . doi:10.1017/s0952523898151027. PMID   9456503. S2CID   1558413.
  26. ↑ Grigg ER (1967). Biologic Relativity. Chicago: Amaranth Books.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
  27. ↑ Solomon RL, Corbit JD (April 1973). "An opponent-process theory of motivation. II. Cigarette addiction". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 81 (2): 158–71. doi:10.1037/h0034534. PMID   4697797.
  28. ↑ Solomon RL, Corbit JD (March 1974). "An opponent-process theory of motivation. I. Temporal dynamics of affect". Psychological Review. 81 (2): 119–45. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.468.2548 . doi:10.1037/h0036128. PMID   4817611.
  29. ↑ Geusebroek JM, van den Boomgaard R, Smeulders AW, Geerts H (December 2001). "Color invariance". IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 23 (12): 1338–1350. Bibcode:2001ITPAM..23.1338G. doi:10.1109/34.977559.
  30. ↑ Barghout L (2014). "Visual taxometric approach to image segmentation using fuzzy-spatial taxon cut yields contextually relevant regions". Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. Springer International Publishing.
  31. ↑ US 2004059754,Barghout L, Lee L,"Perceptual information processing system",published 25 March 2004
  32. ↑ Barghout L (21 February 2014). Vision: Global Perceptual Context Changes Local Contrast Processing, Updated to include computer vision techniques. Scholars' Press.
  33. ↑ Jameson K, D'Andrade RG (1997), "It's not really red, green, yellow, blue: An inquiry into perceptual color space", Color Categories in Thought and Language, Cambridge University Press, pp. 295–319, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511519819.014, ISBN   9780511519819
  34. ↑ De Valois RL, De Valois KK (May 1993). "A multi-stage color model". Vision Research. 33 (8): 1053–65. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(93)90240-w. PMID   8506645. S2CID   53187961.
  35. ↑ Valberg A (September 2001). "Corrigendum to "Unique hues: an old problem for a new generation"". Vision Research. 41 (21): 2811. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(01)00243-7 . ISSN   0042-6989. S2CID   1541112.
  36. ↑ Webster MA, Miyahara E, Malkoc G, Raker VE (September 2000). "Variations in normal color vision. II. Unique hues". Journal of the Optical Society of America A. 17 (9): 1545–55. Bibcode:2000JOSAA..17.1545W. doi:10.1364/josaa.17.001545. PMID   10975364.
  37. ↑ Wuerger SM, Atkinson P, Cropper S (November 2005). "The cone inputs to the unique-hue mechanisms". Vision Research. 45 (25–26): 3210–23. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.016 . PMID   16087209. S2CID   5778387.
  38. ↑ Zeki S, Cheadle S, Pepper J, Mylonas D (2017). "The Constancy of Colored After-Images". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 11: 229. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00229 . PMC   5423953 . PMID   28539878.
  39. ↑ Pridmore RW (2012-10-16). "Single cell spectrally opposed responses: opponent colours or complementary colours?". Journal of Optics. 42 (1): 8–18. doi:10.1007/s12596-012-0090-0. ISSN   0972-8821. S2CID   122835809.
  40. ↑ Griggs RA (2009). "Sensation and perception". Psychology: A Concise Introduction (2 ed.). Worth Publishers. p.  92. ISBN   978-1-4292-0082-0. OCLC   213815202. color information is processed at the post-receptor cell level (by bipolar, ganglion, thalamic, and cortical cells) according to the opponent-process theory.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.