Abstract
The empirical question of whether or not the lightness of a region is accounted for purely by the average luminance of its surround has a complex answer that depends on whether such a region is an increment, a decrement, or intermediate relative to the luminances of the contiguous surfaces. It is shown here that a new model of lightness, based on anchoring principles, predicts and clarifies such intricacies. In this model, the luminance of the target region determines its lightness in two ways: indirectly, by causing it to group with parts of its surround and thus defining the nested frameworks to which it belongs; and directly, by anchoring it to the highest luminance and to the average surround luminance in each of these frameworks. Inter- and intraindividual differences in lightness assessment are shown to emerge under grouping conditions that create unstable, conflicting frameworks.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adelson, E. H. (2000). Lightness perception and lightness illusions. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.),The new cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 339–351). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Arend, L. E.,&Goldstein, R. (1987). Simultaneous constancy, lightness, and brightness.Journal of the Optical Society of America,4, 2281–2285.
Beck, J., Graham, N.,&Sutter, A. (1991). Lightness differences and the perceived segregation of regions and populations.Perception& Psychophysics,49, 257–269.
Bressan, P. (2001). Explaining lightness illusions.Perception,30, 1031–1046.
Bressan, P. (2006).Reversals and re-reversals of lightness contrast. Manuscript in preparation.
Bressan, P. (in press). The place of white in a world of greys: A doubleanchoring theory of lightness perception.Psychological Review.
Bressan, P.,&Actis-Grosso, R. (2001). Simultaneous lightness contrast with double increments.Perception,30, 889–897.
Bressan, P.,&Actis-Grosso, R. (2006). Simultaneous lightness contrast on plain and articulated surrounds.Perception,35, 445–452.
Bruno, N., Bernardis, P.,&Schirillo, J. (1997). Lightness, equivalent backgrounds, and anchoring.Perception& Psychophysics,59, 643–654.
Gilchrist, A., Kossyfidis, C., Bonato, F., Agostini, T., Cataliotti, J., Li, X., et al. (1999). An anchoring theory of lightness perception.Psychological Review,106, 795–834.
Hochberg, J.,&Silverstein, A. (1956). A quantitative index of stimulussimilarity: Proximity vs. differences in brightness.American Journal of Psychology,69, 456–458.
Lotto, R. B.,&Purves, D. (1999). The effects of color on brightness.Nature Neuroscience,2, 1010–1014.
Masin, S. C. (2003). Effects of algebraic and absolute luminance differences on achromatic surface grouping.Perception,32, 615–620.
Melfi, T. O.,&Schirillo, J. A. (2000). T-junctions in inhomogeneous surrounds.Vision Research,40, 3735–3741.
Quinn, P. C., Burke, S.,&Rush, A. (1993). Part-whole perception in early infancy: Evidence for perceptual grouping produced by lightness similarity.Infant Behavior& Development,16, 19–42.
Rock, I., Nijhawan, R., Palmer, S.,&Tudor, L. (1992). Grouping based on phenomenal similarity of achromatic color.Perception,21, 779–789.
Schirillo, J. A. (1999). Surround articulation: I. Brightness judgments.Journal of the Optical Society of America,16, 793–803.
Schirillo, J. A.,&Shevell, S. K. (1996). Brightness contrast from inhomogeneous surrounds.Vision Research,36, 1783–1796.
Yang, Z.,&Purves, D. (2004). The statistical structure of natural light patterns determines perceived light intensity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,101, 8745–8750.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bressan, P. Inhomogeneous surrounds, conflicting frameworks, and the double-anchoring theory of lightness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 22–32 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193808
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193808