TVie]opang.sefournaloftwchonomicStience
1998,VoL 17,Ne.1,2e-25
Original
Articles
The
effect
of
relative
area
of
figures
against
a
background
on
perceived
lightness
and
impression
of
illumination
Aiko
KozAKi')
andKaoru
NoGucHi2)
Tt)dyo
VVbman's
Chn'stian
Uitiversityi)'
andChiba
Uheiversip2)
Ina configuration bearing a figure/groundrelationship theeffect of relative area on perceived
lightnessand perceivedjllurninationwas investigated.A gray
disk
patternedwithblack
or whitepatches was used as the test
field.
The
relative area offigure
(patch)
toground(disk
:thetestfield)
was variedby
changing the number of patchesin
thedisk.
The
relative luminance was alsovaried
by
changes inMunsell value and illuminance.Subjects
madejudgrnents
ofboth
lightnessand
illumination.
The
resultsindicated
thattheeffectof relative area was coupled with relativeluminance ancl perceptual dimensions
(perceived
Iightnessancl illumination>:the area only affected perceivedlightnessof the testdiskwith higherluminance patch(white
patch), butthe areadid
not influencetheimpressionof illumination which wasdetermined
by
thepresence of anyhigher
luminance
region :thehighest
luminance inthedisplay
givesa crucial clue inperceivingillurninationregardless of itsarea, However ifthe largestarea isassociated with white-appearing, relative area
is
effective on apparentillumination.
Key
words:impressien
ofilluminatien,
lightness,
relative area, relativeluminance,
lightness
constancy
The
perception of achromatic color of a surface corresponds tolurninancewhen the surface isseen inthe
film
or aperture mode ofappearance.Luminance
variation of a single region, say a spotlight inthe darkness,causes thecolor to vary along a perceptualdimension
ofbrightness
(clim
tobright).
However,
when theregion
is
perceivedin
thesurface mede, theperceptualdirnensionisnot so simple. Luminance variations of two or more neighboring regions, thatis,
a
disk
surroundedby
a ring or more complex patternlike"Mondorian
pattern",change achromatic color along theperceptual
dimension
oflightness
(black
through gray to white, sometime as a
luminosity),
and at the same time provide the awareness of theintensityof overall
Mumination.
Therefore,
lumi-nance variation in thesurface mode of appearancegivesat
least
two perceptualdirnensions:
lightness
and
illumination.
This
implies
that the perceptualsystern behaves as ifitcould solve the photometric equation :Luminance
(L)
= albedo(A)
×illuminance*
College
ofCu]ture
andCommunication,
Tokyo
woman's ChristianUniversity,2-6'1,Zenpukuji,
Suginami-ku,
Tokyo,
167-O041
(I).
[n
fact,
it
has
been
demonstrated
thattheperce-ptualsystem can solve thisequation
・in
the sense thatfora
fixed
L,
theproduct ofperceivedrightness
(A')
and perceived illumination
(I')
would be constant(Kozaki
and Noguchi, 1976and Noguchi and Kozaki,1985).
Experimental
studies onlightness
constancyhave
examined stimulus correlates forperceptual invari-ance of surface
lightness
with changingillumination,
agreeing that surface lightnessis correlated with some luminance relationsbetween
atest
field
and its neighboring regions(Gilchrist,
1980
;Helson,
1943
;Hsia,
1943;Kozaki,
1963;Leibowitz
et al., 1955;Oyama, 1968;Wallach, 1948). Furthermore, ithas
been
demonstrated
thatlightness
constancyis
greatlyenhancecl by thepresenceof white-appearing stimuli
with
higher
luminance
than a testfield
(Kozaki,
1965).
It
shouldbe
pointed out, therefore,that awhite-appearing surface serves as the anchoring of
lightnessperceptionor the reference pointfor light-ness of other surfaces.
Most of the experiments on lightnessconstancy,
hewever,
have
not systernaticallyinvestigated
theA.
KozAKi
and K. Na]ucH]: The effect of relative area of figuresagainst abackground
onperceived
lightness
andimpression
ofillumination
21pointed out,theproblernof
how
toperceivethe levelef
illumination
on surfaceshas
been
neglected,despite
of theoretical controversies on therelation-ship
between
perceivedlightness
andillumination,
Only a few stuclies have experimentally treatedthis
problem
(Beck,
1959,1961;Flock,1970,1974;Koza-kL
1973;Oyama,1968).
The results obtained by these studeis suggest thattheperceptionoflightne,ss
and theperceptionofillumination
have
independent,individualstimulus correlates
bearing
no causalrela-tionships.
Kozaki
and Noguchi(1976)
have attempted tospecify rnore
directly
the relationshipbetween
per-ceivedlightness
and perceivedilluminatiQnunder the conclition where theluminance
variation uf atestfieldwas systematically manipulated to
keep
constantlevelswith differentcombinations of reflectance and
illuminance.
They
have
found an important factconcerning the perceptual scission where a single stimulation, luminance, produces two separate perce-ptual
dimensions,
i.e.
perceived lightnessancl per-ceived illumination. The extent of the perceptual scission isdeterrninedby the reflectance of theback-ground:it was most marked
for
the whiteback-ground; intermediate
for
the graybackground;
andthe leastfor the black background. Similar
ten-dencieswere
found
under thecondition where a testsurface isnot seen as "figure", but
as
`iground"
(Noguchi
&
Kozaki,
1985>.
Even when the testsurface was seen as "ground"
like
theGelb
disk,
it
was possibleto separate lightnessfrom
illuminationifthecoexistence regions with higherrefiectance, say, white appearing regions other than the testsurface were present. The appearance of the testsurface changed
from
light
gray todark
gray orblack
whensmall white patches were placed on
it
(the
Gelb
effect). However, there was little,ifany, the scission effect
if
the regions of lower reflectance, brack-appearing regions, were aclded to the testsurface,Whenever
the
Gelb
effectoccurs, therewas arecipro-cal relation
between
perceivedlightness
andper-ceived illumination.RecentlyCataliotteand
Gilchrist
(1995)
have presentedsimilar evidence that thedar-kening
of thetargetby
introducing
a region of higherluminance depended only on therelative
luminance
ofthetargetto other higherluminance region.
From
thesefindings
it
is
clear thatluminances
ofregions other than the testfield,such as background or coexisting stimuli, are crucial fordeterminingbQth
judgments
oflightness
and illurnination.Itisimpor-tant
to
note here that thejudgments
are strong]yinfiuenced
by
thehighest
luminance when eitherhigh-lightsor clearly
discriminable
surfaces orbackground
or other coexistent regions are present(Kozaki,
1973;Noguchi
&
Masuda, I971).Kozaki(1973},
moreover,suggests that the perceptionof overall
illumination
depends
on the lurninance of thelargest
area ofstimuli as well as on the
highest
luminance. However, thefactorof area determining perceptionof i]]umina-tion has not yetbeen systernatically investigated.
The
purpose of the experiments tobe
reportedbelow isto examine the effect of area of coexistent regions relative to a test
field
area under the condition whereboth
judgments
of lightnessand of illumination are made on a single surface.Method
Apparatus and testpatterns
The apparatus has been described jndetail else-where
(Kozaki
&
Noguchi,
1976).
Therefore,
onlyabrief
description
of tha appuratus will begiven
here.A
disk
on which small circular patches wererandom-Iymounted was used as test
field
(TF).
theTF
measured 20em indiameter and subtended approxi-mately
6.7
degrees
at a viewingdistance
of 172cm.Each circular
patch
inthedisk
was 2cmin
diameter,
subtending approximately 40min of arc.By
chang-ing
the number of patches,threedifferent
proportionsor relative areas of patchfTF diskwere obtained :1, 10,and 30%. The Munsell value of the patches was either
N3.5
(appearing
black)
or N7.5(appearing
white). TheMunsell
values of theTF
were :N
5.0,
N6.5,
andN
7.5
fortheblack
patch,and N 3,5,N
5.0,and N6.5
for
thewhite patch.Therefore,
therewas a totalof 18TFs(3
relative areas ×2patches ×3
TF
lightness)
.
TF with black patchesand TF with white patches are presented inFigure1.The TFs were ina
holder
rotatedby
anelectromag-netic clutch system and each TF was selected
accu-rately
by
rneans of remote control system. TheTFLdisk was illuminated
by
a slide projectorwith ahalogen lamp
(24-v,
150'w) and was viewedby
the right eye through a circular aperture,In
ordef to22
The
Japanese
Journalof
Psychonomic
Science VFigure1.
Stimulus
pattern used in the present etperiment.filters
(Hoya
Glass),with a range of1,93
log
unitsin
approxiinately
five
equal steps were used.A
solenoid-operated shutter was interposedinthe path of theviewing field,the surface of which was a sheet o,f
midgray paper,
When
closed,it
functioned
as apre-adaptation
field
of which logluminance was2,4
cd!m, Atinier-regulating
system was wiredinto
a circuitry so that the preadaptation fieldwould be presented for17sand TF for3s.The circuitry cutthe illuminationof preadaptationfieldwhen thestirnulusdisplaypresentedexposed and cut theilluminationof
thestimulus
display
when thepreadaptationfield
was exposed.
Procedure
In the presentexperiment two types of category
judgments
were made :lightness
judgments
andillu-mination
judgments,
Each
subject was taken to an observation booth inadark
room. S was askecl to'
keep hisor
her
head
and theright eye aligned so as tosee
TF
straight ahead. Inthe lightnessjudgments
'session,
the followinginstructionswere given:"You
will see a
Iarge
disk
on which white orblack
smallcircular patches are pasted. Your task isto
judge
apparent lightnessof thelarge
disk,not the small circular patches,by using the fol]owing nine cate-gories;black, very blackish gray,blackish
gray, ratherb]ackish
gray, medium gray, rathey whitishgray, whitish gray, very whitish gray, and white."
The
instructiongiven in the session of illumintionjudgments
were:"You
will see a large disk with white orblack
small circular patches. Your taskis
tojudge
the impression of the overall illuminationonthe
disk
by
using thefollowing
nine categories :very,very
dim,
very dim, ratherdim,
medium, ratherbright,very
bright,
ancl very, very bright".
Lightness
and illuminationjudgment
sessions wererun independently,and theorder of running the ses-$ion were counterbalanced over the
Ss,
In eachol. 17,Ne. 1
session, after practice trials,
S
madejudgrnents
for each of the18
TFs
at each of thefivelevelsof illumi-nation. This experimental procedure was repeatedtwo tirneswith
different
random sequences,There-fore,
eachS
macle a total of l80judgments
(18
TFs ×5illuminationlevels×2replications) foreach of two
judgment
sessjons.
Subjects
Five
Ss,
3
researchers and 2 graduate students,participated
in
theexperiment. AllSshad nermal or corrected-to-normal vision.
Treatment
ofData
Each
categoryjudgment
was cenverted intoa 9-point numerical scale rangingfrom
I(black
for
light-nes and very, verydim
for
illumination)
to9(white
for
lightness
and very, very brightforilluminatien)for cemputational purposes.
Since
everyS
showed simillar respense tendencies with the experimental variablesboth
in
lightnessand illuminationjudgment
sessions, data were averaged over thefive
Ss.
Results
andDiscussion
Relative
area effect onTF
lightness
The
resultis oflightness
judgments
are presentedin
Figure2, where the meanjudgments
ofperceived
lightness
(A')
are plotted against log relativeil-luminance
with therelative area of patchelTFdisk
as the parameter. Figure2a shows that under the condition of the white patches,
A's
for
all of threeTFs become darker as the relative area
increases
from 1to 30%.
On
theother'hand,
as shown inFigure2
b,
under thecondition of the'blackpatches,thereare no systematic changes inA'with the changein
rela-tivearea.
Namely,
the effect ofTF-Munsell
value observed clearly forthe white patches was not seenforthe blackpatches. Analysisof variance revealed that forthe white patche$themain effects of relative
area and of
TF-Munsell
value were significant[F(2,
8)=11.29, p<O.Ol; F(2,8)tt148.0I, p<O.Ol respec-tively] and theinteractienbetween relative area and
TF-Munserl
value was significant[F(4,
16)=5.79, p<O.Ol1.For theblackpatches,however, no main effects were significant.
The significant effect of relative area on
lightness
judgments
under thecondition of thewhite patches in-the
TF
disk
impliesthat thedarkening of perceived9.0 8.0 7,O
A
6.0-<:sEen 5.0vqzaoS 4.0ipp]3.0 2.0 1.0A. KozAKiand K. NoGucHi:
The
effectperceived
2/
of relative area of figures
lightne$s
andimpression
ofTFMV 6.5" MV 5.0 -MV 3.5i o.o O O,6 t2 1.8 2.4 LogRelativeIllvminance
Figure2a. Lightness
judgments
(A')
ofTF
as afunctionof jllurninanceare plottedwith the
tivearea of white patches as the parameter.
9.0 8.0 7.0 - 6.0itY! 5.0vmgzaX 4.ola=3.0 2.0 t,o against a
backgrouncl
onillumination
23 TFMV 7.5X Mv 6.5 -MV 5.0 -h o.o O O,6 1.2 t.8 2.4 LqgRelative-ummanoeFigure2b.
Lightness
judgments
(A')
ef TF as afunctionof illuminanceare plottedwith the
tjvearea of black patches as
the
parameter.tent region.
This
finding
agrees with the result obtained by Stewart(1959).
Hefound
in
Gelb
type's experiment thattheincrease
insizeof the contrasting white stimulidarkened
the apparent lightnessofTF-disk.
Since
the classical studies onlightness/
brightness
contrast typicallyshow that a surface oflower luminance
(black-appearing
area)has
little,if any, effect on the lightnessof the surface ofhigher
]uminance
(Diamond,
1953,1962;Heinemann, 1955;Torii& Uemura, l965),itissupposed thatan increase
in the area with lower luminance
(black
patch) would notbring
about any significant effect on light-nessjudgments
ofTF.
The
present results are clearlythecase,
Very recently
Li
andGilchrist
(1997)
have reported that darkening of the ganzfeldsurround inthe largeoval condition as coexistent region was
larger
thanin the smalldisk
condition.In
theirstudy thedifference
of darkening of the ganzfelclbetween
thelargeoval cendition and the small disk condition isnot quite significant,but
direction
of this differenceisconsis-tentwith theprinciplethat a largerarea isassociated with a whiter appearance.
In
thepresentexperiment,as
is
clearly seen inFigure
2
a, the TF-disk with the smallest white patch(1%-relative
area, which meansthe largestTF area) appears the lighte$tfor each
TF・Munsell
value. As mentioned above, thedarken-ing of
TF
was most marked in the largestareaconclition
(30%-relative
area).
Relative
area effect onillumination
judgments
The results of
illumination
judgments
are shownin
Figure3a and 3b, where themeans of illumination
judgments
(I')
are pletted againstlog
relativeil-luminance
with relative area of patchesas theparam-eter. For brevity'ssake, the
Mumination
judgements
for
twoTFs,
N
6.5
and N 5.0,were plotted underboth
conditions of white patch(Fig.3a)
andblack
patch(Fig.3b).
As seen inFigure3a
itisclear that effects of the relative area and TF-Munsell value onillumi・
nationjudgment
are not significant for the whitepatch. Inthe case of
black
patch as shown inFigure24 The
Japanese
Journal
ofPsychonomicScienceVol.
17,No.
1 9,O 8.0 7.0 At 6.0ttuEag s.o2・2-tu,E 4.0E2 3,O 2.0 t.o o.o O O.6 L2 L8..
2ALog Relativevauminance
Figure3a.
IIIuminationjudgments
(I')
of thestimulus
field
as afunction
of illuminance areplottedwith therelative area of white patchesas
theparameter.
Av-c-Eenv=.=.9ti,EE2
9,O 8.0 7.0 6.0 5,O 4.0 3.0 2,O t,o o.o O O.6 t.2 1.8 2.4 LQgRelaiiveMuminanceFigure3b.
Illumination
judgments
(I')
of the stirnulusfield
as a functionsof illuminance are plotted with therelative area ofblack
patchesastheparameter.
relative area, buttend te
be
brighter
withincreasing
TF-Munsell value.
Analysis
of variancefor
the black patchcondition revealed thatthe effect of therelative area was not significant, while the main effect ofTF-Munsell value was significant ferallconditions of
relative area
[F(2,
8)-53.11, p<O.Ol].
Cemparison
between
Figures3a
ancl3b
indicates
that
illumination
wasjudged much brighterunder thewhite patch thanforthe
black
patchcondition,Beck
(1972)
pointed out,based
onhis
experiments(1959
and 1961), thatjudgements
of illumination were strongly influencedby
themaximumluminance
when' either highlightsor clearlydiscriminable
areas ofhigher
surface luminance were present,The
resultsby Kozaki
(1973),
Noguchi andMasuda
(1971)
andOyama
(1968)
also supperted that the highest luminancein
thevisual fieldis
one of themostimpor-tantdeterminants of perceived
illumination.
Accord-ing to theseprevious investigations,itfsexpected
that under the condition of white patch with the
highest luminance
in
a configuration, illuminationjudgments
depend mainly on the patch"luminance, and wou]d be kept almost constantin
spite of thechange in'the
TF-Munsell
value. The results onillumination
judgment
obtainedin
thepresent experi-ment exactly coincides with thisexpectation.In
theblack
patch condition, however, since the TFluminance
isalways higherthan the patchIuminance,perceived illuminationwould
increase
with thein-creament inthe
TF-Munsell
value. The resultsfor
black
patch support thisdeduction:
the effect ofTF-Munsell
value was significant.
These
findings
are inaccordance with the resultsby
our previous studies
(Kozaki
andNoguchi,
1976; Noguchi and Kozaki, 1985),These
studies demon-strated thattheperceived illuminationinwhite co・ existent stimulus conditions(background
or patches)were
brighter
thanin
black
coexistent stimuluscondi-tions,and therewas no or littledifferencein per-ceived illumination when the TF was
darker
thanthe
A. KozAKi and K,
NoGL/cm:
The
effect of relative area of figuresagainst a background onperceivedlightnessand
impression
of illumination 25coexistent stimulus, while
in
the condition where theTF was lighterthan the other stimulus, perceived
illumination increased with the
increment
in theTF-luminance.
Based on thesefactsitisconcludedthatwhen the
impression
efillumination
is
judged,
subjects are similarly responding as
lightness
judg-ment to"therelative luminance of stimulus field".
If an area with the
highest
reflectance(white-appearing area) is an important
determinant
for perceivedillumination,
in
thesensethat
itgivesa clue or serves as a reference peint tojudgment
of illumina-tion level,and ifthe effect of area ispresent,theincrease
of a surface area with higher reflectancewould heighten the
perceived
illumination on thesurface.
Following
to
thishypothesis,since an incre-mentin
patch area withthe
lowest reflectance(black)
causes a decrease inTF
area with higher reflectance, the effect of the lighterTF on impression of overallillumination
on the surface would bewea-kened with increase
in
relative area of blackpatches.Thus
thejudgments
of illuminationmay vary with changing thearea oi patches.As shown inFigure
3b,
illumination
judgments
tend tobe
brighter
withdecreasing
the area of blackpatches,butthe effect Qfrelative area was not significant. Itisimportant to notice here thatthe
difference
in
illurnination
judg-mentsbetween
TFs was significantfor
black
patches.It may
be
generalized that perceived illuminationwould be primarily
determined
by
thehigher
refiectance in stimulus configuration,
In
presentexperiment,
however,
we could not find anysigriificant
difference
between
relative area when the coexistent area was highest in reflectance (white-appearing).These
findings
suggest thattheillumina-tion
judgment
depends
primarily on thehighest
luminance,
and even though the area with thehighest
reflectance
is
very very small(white
patches cover only 1% of the stimulus surface).This
means thatthe
highest
Iuminance area playsthe role as arefer-ence point
for
illumination
judgment
at the higher levelrather than at the retinallevel
asBeck
(1972)
arguecl.He
proposed thattheneural intensity$ignals of areas seen as white are not modifiedby
lateralinhibitionand vary directlywith theintensityof the
illumination.
In thewayjust
indicated,Qur point ofview isquite
different
frem
Beck's
one. According tethis
view itisnatural thatthe effect of the relativearea was not significant.
It should
be
also pointed outhere
thatblack
patches and white patches
behave
differently
intheperceptionof illuminatien. Under the
white
patchcondition theapparent illurninationwas dependent on
the
white patch itselfwhich was thehighest
luminan-ce
in
thedisplay.
On
the otherhand,
theblack
patchdidnot work as a
determinant
for thejudgment
ofillumination,but the TF
luminances
which werehigher
than the patch were effective in perceivingilluminatien.
As
statedbefore,
the presence of a region of higherreflectance produces ahigher
degree
of
lightness
constancy(Kozaki,
1965). Lightnessconstancy appears to
be
a complex relationalphe-nomena involving the interactionof
lightness
andillumination
judgments.
The most important findinginthis study
is
that thehighest
reflectancein
thestimulus fieldissimilarly serving as a reference point
for
judging
illumination
aslightness
perceptionand'
givesa crucial clue
for
illumination
judgment
'
Iess
of itsarea.
These
results,however,
clo
notimply
that
relativearea isnot a determinant
for
perceivedillumination.
As
Kozaki
(1973)
reported, the impressionofillumi-nation
depends
on thelargest
area inthe stimulusfieldas well as on thehighest
luminance.
In
Kezaki's
experiment,background
instead
of patch was used as coexistentfield
surreunding theTF
and the area ofthebackground was rnuch largerthanthatof the
TF.
According
to Katz(1935),
itisa totalinsistencewhich determines the perceptionof the illumination
of a surface perceivedto
be
illuminated
uniformly,thus
it
wMbe
assumed that, within certainlimits,
area acts likeluminance,thatis,
theincreaseinareahas the same effect as theincreasein
lurninance.
Asdescribed
above, inKozaki]s experiment(1973)
thearea of the
background
ismuch largerthan that ofthe testfield,so that, the effect of the
background
luminance
on totalinsistencewas largerthan that ofthetestfield.Inthestudy ofsurface lightness,Liand
Gilchrist
(in
personal communication, 1997)suggestthatlargearea isassociated with the perceptionof a white surface
just
asis
high
luminance.
This
ten-dency
is called "relativearea principle"which
is
distinguished
from "relative luminanceprinciple".
In view of theexperimental evidence on surface
lightnessand illumination,itisconcluded that
26
The
Japanese
Journalof
PsychonomicScience
Vol.
17,
No.
1
ceived illurnination
depends
mainly on relativeluminance which also
determines
perceivecllightness.and that
if
thelargest
area isassociated withwhite-appearing surface, relative area principle can
be
applied totheperceptionofillumination.
References
Beck,
J,
1959Stimulus
correlatesfor
thejudged
mination of a surface.
Jburnal
of
Etpen'menldl
Rsp)cholcigy,
58,267-274.Beck,
J,
1961
Judgement
of surface illuminationancllightness.
Iburnal
of
E)tpen'menlalRsychogqgl,,61,368-375.
Beck,
J.
1972Surface
Colur
Perception.
Cornell
Univ.
Press.
Cataliotte,
J.,
& Gilchrist,A, l995 Local and globalprocesses in lightnessperception.
Rr7Toption
&
Rsychophysics,
57,
125-135
Diamond,
A.
L.
1953Foveal simultaneousbrightness
contrast as a function of inducing-and test-field.Ibumal
of
EixPen'mental
RsycholQgy,
45,304-314.Diamond,
A.
L.
1962Simultaneous
contrast as ation of test-fieldarea,
foblrnal
of
EltperimeninlIlsycholagy,,
64,
336-346,
Flock,
H,R.
1970
Jameson
and Hurvich's theory ofbrightness
contrast. Ilercoption&
IM'chophysies,
8,
118-124.
'
Flock,
H.R.
1974Stimulus structure inlightnessandbrightness
experiments. InR.Mac Leod&
H.
Pick
(Eds.),
Perception:Essays
in
hornor
ofJames
J.
Gibson
(pp.185-2e8).
Ithaca,
N.Y.:Cornell
Uni-versity Press.
Gilchrist,
A.
L.
1980When
does
perceivedlightness
depenclon perceived spatial arrangement?
tion
&
IlsychopJaysic:s,
28,527'538.Gilehrist,
A.L.
1994 Introduction:Absolute
versusrelative theoriesof
lightness
perception. InA.L
Gilchrist
(Ed.),
Lightness,
Brightness,andTran$-parency
(pp.1-34).
Hillsdale,New
Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heinemann,
E.G.
1955Simultaneous
brightnessinduction
as a functionof inducing and testfie]d
]uminance.
Ibumal
of
Etpen'mental1[lsychology,
50,89-96,
Helson,
H,
1943Sorne
factors
andimplications
of color constancy.Ibu7vial
of
CPtical
Society
of
Amen'ca,
33,
555L567.Hsia,
Y.
1943
Whiteness
constancy as afunction
ofdifferencesinillumination.
Arch.
Psychol,
(New
York),
No.
284,Katz,
D.
1935The
World of Color.London: KeganPaul.Kozaki,
A. 1963
A
further
study inthe relationship
between
brightness
constancy and contrast.koanese
lvcholagical
Researvh,5,
129-136.
Kozaki,A. 1965The effectof co-existent stimuli other
thanteststimulus on
brightness
constancy.IaPanese
lllycholagical
Research,
7,138-147.Kozaki, A.
1973
Perception
oflightness
andness of achromatic surface color and
'impression
of
illumination.
1mpanese
RsycholcrgicalResearch,15,
194-203.
Kozaki, A.,
&
Noguchi,
K,
1976The
relationshipbetween
perceived
surface-lightness and perceived
illumination:
A
manifestation of perceptualsion. Rsycholagical
Research,
39,
1"16,
Leibowitz,
H.,
Myers,
N.A.,& Chinetti,P.1955Theroie of simultaneous contrast in
brightness
constancy.
Ibuiveal
of
Etperimenlal
Rrycholagy,
50,
15-18.
Li,
X.,
&
Gilchrist,
A.L.1997 Relativearea andtive luminance combine toanchor surface
lightness
values.In
pressin
R]rcqPtion
&
ltwcof,hysics
(per-sonal communication).Noguchi, K.,& Kozaki,A. 1985Perceptualscission of surface-lightness and
illumination:
Antienof the
Gelb
effect. 1twcholagicalResea7ch,47, 19-25.Noguchi, K.,& Masuda,
N,
1971Brightness
changesin a complex fieldwith changing illumination: re-examination of
Jameson
andHurvich's
study ofbrightness eonstancy.
IaPanese
RsychologicalReseatTh,
13,
60-69.
Oyama,
T.
1968Stimulus
determinants ofbrightness
constancy and theperception
illuminati
on.1mpanese
Ilrv'cholagical
Research,
13,60-69,Stewart,
E.
C.1959The Gelb effect.Ibblrnal
of
1!ltPen'-mental
Rsycholagy',
57,235-242.
Torii,
S.,
&
Uemura,
Y.
1965
Effeets
ef inducingluminance
and area upon apparent brightnessof atest field,
koanease
ArycholagicalResearch.,7, 86-100.Wallach,H.
1948
Brightness
constancy and thenatureof achromatic colors,
lburnal
of
E)tPen'mentalIlsychotcig),,38,