Colour Science & Perception
what the eye settles, and what it cannot
The collection

Every essay — page 17

Page 17 of 54, continuing through the fields in the same order.

What light is What the eye does Matching and measuring Difference and uniformity What the brain does What a scene does What a camera does Where the model breaks What it takes to deliver it

SeriesObserversNamed objectsRefutationsSearch

What the eye does

Three cone types project an infinite-dimensional spectrum onto three numbers. Everything colour science can and cannot do follows from that one collapse.

What the rods cost a match, by where their signal enters and under which lamp. For five lights, the median colour difference over forty-two surfaces between the reference observer and the same observer with a rod signal a tenth of each cone's peak added — into all three cone channels, into the long- and middle-wavelength channels only, or into the short-wavelength channel only. Under daylight the first two are 1.03 and 0.90: whether the rods reach the S pathway hardly matters. Under a phosphor white LED they are 1.24 and 0.45, a factor of 2.75, and the S-only route alone costs 0.96.

The rods' route is priced by the lamp

A rod signal in a dim room disturbs a colour match, and how much depends on which of the cone pathways it reaches — a weight the physiology leaves uncertain, especially for the blue–yellow pathway. Under daylight the uncertainty is nearly free: a rod signal that skips the S pathway costs 0.90 at the median surface against 1.03 for one that enters all three. Under a phosphor white LED it is worth a factor of 2.75, 0.45 against 1.24. What decides it is one number per lamp: how large the rod signal is compared with each cone class's own catch of the light.

6 figures Which two lamps to stand a mesopic match between. Every pair of the five lights, by how far a match made under one and set under the other moves as the rod signal's weight into the S channel goes from nothing to equal — the median over forty-two surfaces, which is the signal an experiment has to resolve. The best pair is daylight against phosphor LED at 0.58 ΔE₀₀; the worst is tungsten against fluorescent tube at 0.09, a factor of 6. The count at the right is how many settings it takes to resolve the weight to a tenth at half a colour difference of scatter per setting.

The reference lamp must not move

To measure an uncertain weight, use the condition in which the answer depends on it most. That is right about half of an asymmetric colour match and exactly wrong about the other half: a match measures a difference of two displacements, and a reference field that also moves with the weight cancels the signal the test field carries. Daylight is the least sensitive of five lamps and belongs in every one of the three best pairs — 75 settings against a phosphor LED, 2,804 against the pair of lamps the principle as stated would have chosen.

5 figures Two ways to ask how much rod signal an older eye has. The rod signal's catch of each lamp divided by the S cones' own catch, against the observer's age, for five lamps — drawn twice. The upper curves take the rod signal at a fixed absolute size, and every one of them roughly doubles from twenty to seventy-five: an older lens cuts the blue before the S cones see it and the rods, peaking further into the green, lose much less. The lower curves take the rod signal at a tenth of each cone's own peak absorptance, which is the model's own definition, and they barely move at all. Nothing about the retina differs between the two; only the normalisation does.

A rod signal has no natural size

An older lens absorbs where the S cones are sensitive, so it should make the uncertain rod-to-S-cone weight cheaper. Measured, the rod signal's catch of a phosphor LED as a share of the S cones' own catch more than doubles from twenty to seventy-five — and the share the model actually uses falls by a fifth. The two differ by the S cone's peak absorptance, which the lens takes 60 per cent of, and which entered the model as a normalisation rather than as a claim.

5 figures How far a mesopic match moves as the S weight opens: two rooms against one field. For every pair of the five lamps, the median over forty-two surfaces of how far a match moves as the rod signal's weight into the S channel goes from nothing to equal: pale for the two-room match, each half adapted to its own lamp; dark for a bipartite field whose two halves share one adaptation. The field's signal is larger for every pair, by ×1.5 to ×7.7.

One field keeps what two rooms divide out

An asymmetric match can measure how strongly the rods feed the blue-yellow pathway, but set with the observer adapted to each lamp in turn it needs seventy-five settings on the best pair of lamps and hours of waiting between them. Putting the two lamps on the two halves of one field was proposed as the quick version, at the cost of a weaker signal. The signal is not weaker. Under one shared adaptation it is three times stronger for daylight against a white LED, and the best pair needs six settings. The adaptation that makes the slow version slow is also what was dividing the rods' contribution out of each half.

5 figures What a weight fitted under the wrong reading does across ages. If the retina's rod signal has a fixed absolute size and the weight is fitted with the model's scaled reading, the fitted weight is the true one times the ratio of the two readings' signals: ×0.80 at twenty, ×1 at thirty-two, ×1.62 at seventy-five. The other way about, the reciprocal. A cohort of observers sharing one weight would show it as a trend with age.

Age can size the rod signal, if the lens is known

A rod signal leaking into the colour pathways has no natural size in the model: read as a fraction of each cone's own peak it shrinks as the lens yellows, read as a fixed amount it grows relative to the cones, and the two readings differ by a factor of two over a lifetime. An asymmetric match on observers of different ages can tell them apart, because they predict opposite trends: one says a weight fitted at seventy-five will look sixty per cent larger than at thirty-two, the other says it will not move. A handful of observers per age would show it. But a lens mistaken by ten years looks like forty per cent of the weight, and a tenth of an optical density of macular pigment as much again, so the experiment is only as good as what it knows of each eye's lens and macula.

6 figures What each pair of lamps pays to fit the lens and the macula as well. For each pair of lamps, the standard error of the rod signal's S weight fitted from one session — with the observer's lens and macula known (top bar), with the lens fitted too (middle) and with both fitted (bottom). Daylight against the LED is the best pair with everything known, ±0.026, and pays most of its advantage for the macula; tungsten against the LED pays almost nothing for either.

The matches carry their own lens

A lens mistaken by ten years moves a colour match as far as half the rod signal being measured, and a tenth of an optical density of macular pigment as far again, so an experiment on the rod signal looked as if it needed a densitometer for every observer. It does not. Across a family of surfaces the three move the matches in different patterns, and one session of forty-two settings fits all three together — the lens to within a year and a quarter, better than a densitometer was asked for. The price is the weight's precision, and a second pair of lamps nearly removes it.

6 figures Where a lens edge 10 nanometres off goes in a one-session fit. A sixty-year-old observer whose lens edge sits 10 nanometres longer (upper bars) or shorter (lower bars) than the model's, fitted by the model from one daylight-against-LED session: the shift in each fitted parameter, in that parameter's standard errors. The macula takes the most, 2.4 of its standard errors; the weight moves by 0.59 of its own, 0.035 in absolute terms, against a prediction of under a tenth for an edge ten nanometres off.

A lens of the wrong shape lands in the macula

One session of colour matches can fit an observer's rod signal, lens and macular pigment together — but it fits a lens of the model's shape, one exponential in wavelength scaled by age, and a real lens need not be that shape. Give a sixty-year-old a lens with the right density at 400 nm and its edge ten nanometres off, and the fit puts the error mostly in the macula, moves the rod signal's weight by six tenths of its standard error — six times the predicted tenth — and leaves a misfit the session cannot see. A second lamp pair makes it worse: 3.5 standard errors. Fitting the edge as a fourth number removes the bias, costs the weight three to fourteen per cent, and finds the edge.

6 figures Where one session puts a band in the lens, by the band's wavelength. A band of a tenth of an optical density in a sixty-year-old's lens, centred from 410 to 460 nm, fitted from one daylight-against-LED session by the model with weight, lens age, macula and the lens edge free: each parameter's shift in its own standard errors. Near 410 to 430 nm the band is read as lens; from 440 it is read as macula; the edge takes little of it anywhere; and the rod weight moves at every centre, by 0.37 to 1.39 of its standard errors.

A band in the lens reads as age or as macula

A lens whose absorption edge is steeper or shallower than the model's biases a matching session's fit, and fitting the edge's position repairs it. An ageing lens also grows bands: yellow pigments that add a shoulder of absorption just past 400 nanometres. The edge parameter takes none of one. A tenth of an optical density centred at 410 to 430 nm is read as four to six years of extra lens age; centred at 440 to 460, as three to ten hundredths of macular pigment. Either way the rod signal's fitted weight moves, by up to 1.4 of its standard errors in one session and 1.8 in two, and the session's misfit stays within its noise. The lens model has to carry the band, or the experiment has to state what it does not know.

6 figures More rods make a lens band's pull on the rod weight worse, unless the band is fitted. A sixty-year-old's lens with a band of a tenth of a density at 450 nm, fitted by the model with the rod signal a tenth to a half of each cone's peak: the shift in the fitted rod weight, in its own standard errors. With weight, lens age and macula fitted, one session's shift grows from +1.73 at a tenth to +2.53 at a third, and two sessions' more. With the band's amplitude fitted as a fourth number, one session stays under half a standard error at every share.

A dimmer session hides a lens band in the rods

A band of extra absorption in an older lens is read by a colour-matching session as lens age or as macular pigment, and it pulls the fitted rod weight with it. The rods see the lens and not the macula, so a dimmer session, where they carry a third of the signal instead of a tenth, was predicted to tell the band from the macula. It does the opposite. With the band at 450 nm left out of the fit, the rod weight's shift grows from 1.7 of its standard errors to 2.5, the misfit a session could notice shrinks by a third, and the macula and the band trade more tightly. The rods see the band — and the rod weight, which the fit is free to move, is exactly what absorbs it. What separates the band from the macula is fitting its amplitude as a fourth number, which works in daylight already.

5 figures How well a matching session places a lens band's centre. A sixty-year-old's lens with a band of a tenth of a density centred from 410 to 460 nm, fitted with the rod weight, lens age, macula, the band's amplitude and its centre all free: the centre's standard error, from one daylight-against-LED session and from designs adding a second session. One session places the centre to 11.5 nm at worst below 430 and within 5.7 above it; adding the LED against the three-emitter lamp brings every centre within 5.5.

A second lamp pair finds a lens band's centre

A band of extra absorption in an older lens is found by a colour-matching fit only if the fit has a parameter for it, and a band parameter at a fixed wavelength finds only a band near that wavelength. Freeing the band's centre as a fifth number asks whether the matches can place it. From one daylight-against-LED session they place a band above 430 nm to within six nanometres and one below it only to eight to twelve, where moving the band and ageing the lens change the matches together — and there they barely see the band at all. A second session, the LED against a three-emitter lamp, places every centre within five and a half nanometres. The fluorescent tube's line at 436 nm helps where it sits and nowhere else.

5 figures From which starts a fit finds a lens band, two sessions. For a band of a tenth of a density at 415, 430 and 445 nm in a sixty-year-old's lens, the number of twenty simulated experiments of two sessions each in which a fit of all five numbers, started with the band's centre at each of 400 to 470 nm, finds the centre within twice its standard error. The ticks at the left edge are the same count for a fit started at the true observer: 18, 18, 18 for the three bands.

A lost lens band goes to age or the macula

Two colour-matching sessions determine the centre of a band of extra absorption in an older lens to about five nanometres, if a fit can find it. Fitted in full from eight starts across 400 to 470 nm on twenty simulated experiments, two sessions find a band at 415, 430 or 445 nm from every start in fifteen to eighteen experiments of twenty, against eighteen for a fit started at the truth. The prediction was that a low band would be lost from high starts to the macula's flank. The start barely matters with two sessions, and a lost band does go somewhere — but a band at 415 or 430 goes to lens age, three to five years of it, and only a band at 445 goes to the macula. Every loss is a worse fit than the session's best, so eight starts find the band as often as the truth does. With one session the start decides.

6 figures The lens band a fit reports for a macula that peaks off 460 nm. For an observer at sixty with no band in the lens and a macula peaking 6 and 3 nm short of the model's 460, at 460, and 3 and 6 nm long, the band the five-number fit reports from the exact matches, as its amplitude over its standard error, with one and two sessions. A macula 3 nm short is read as a band of 0.061 at 438 nm from two sessions, 3.1 standard errors; a macula peaking long has no band to become, and at 6 nm long the fit runs to the edge of the range a band may take.

A macula three nanometres short is a lens band

Two colour-matching sessions can fit a band of extra absorption in an older lens, its size and its centre, and the test proposed for real older observers was to count those with a band more than twice its standard error. That test assumes a significant band can only be a band. The observer model's macula peaks at 460 nm; a real one is two carotenoids whose mix moves its peak by a few nanometres. Simulated with its macula peaking three nanometres short and no band at all, an observer at sixty is fitted with a lens band of 0.06 at 438 nm, three standard errors, and noisy sessions find it in nineteen of twenty experiments. Six nanometres short, the phantom is larger than the band the earlier essays searched for. The confusion runs both ways: a real band fitted with the macula's peak free reads as a macula two to three nanometres short. Neither fit alone can tell them apart. Comparing the two can, with two sessions — never preferring the macula for a real band, and preferring it in sixteen to nineteen experiments of twenty for a short macula.

6 figures