Chromatic and luminance sensitivity for skin and skinlike textures.

Despite the importance of the appearance of human skin for theoretical and practical purposes, little is known about visual sensitivity to subtle skin-tone changes, and whether the human visual system is indeed optimized to discern skin-color changes that confer some evolutionary advantage. Here, we report discrimination thresholds in a three-dimensional chromatic-luminance color space for natural skin and skinlike textures, and compare these to thresholds for uniform stimuli of the same mean color. We find no evidence that discrimination performance is superior along evolutionarily relevant color directions. Instead, discriminability is primarily determined by the prevailing illumination, and discrimination ellipses are aligned with the daylight locus. More specifically, the area and orientation of discrimination ellipses are governed by the chromatic distance between the stimulus and the illumination. Since this is true for both uniform and textured stimuli, it is likely to be driven by adaptation to mean stimulus color. Natural skin texture itself does not confer any advantage for discrimination performance. Furthermore, we find that discrimination boundaries for skin, skinlike, and scrambled skin stimuli are consistently larger than those for uniform stimuli, suggesting a possible adaptation to higher order color statistics of skin. This is in line with findings by Hansen, Giesel, and Gegenfurtner (2008) for other natural stimuli (fruit and vegetables). Human observers are also more sensitive to skin-color changes under simulated daylight as opposed to fluorescent light. The reduced sensitivity is driven by a decline in sensitivity along the luminance axis, which is qualitatively consistent with predictions from a Von Kries adaptation model.

The discrimination of chromatic textures.

Color discrimination is influenced by chromatic distributions such as they appear on differently illuminated 3D surfaces (T. Hansen, M. Giesel, & K. R. Gegenfurtner, 2008). Here, we measured discrimination thresholds for chromatically variegated stimuli and modeled the data employing a model with multiple chromatic mechanisms. Each mechanism has a differently tuned half-wave-rectified cosine-shaped sensitivity profile centered at a different chromatic direction. To estimate thresholds, the model's responses to a test and a comparison stimulus are determined. A detection variable is calculated by taking the difference of the responses to the two stimuli and by a subsequent nonlinear combination of the responses. The model was fitted to the data presented in T. Hansen et al. (2008) and to data from two new experiments. In the first experiment, we measured discrimination thresholds for stimuli chromatically variegated along a direction orthogonal to the one used in the previous experiments. In the second experiment, we investigated the interplay between chromatic distributions and different mean contrast levels. We found that a model with eight mechanisms accounted for the effect of chromatic variation within the stimuli and provided a better fit to the discrimination thresholds than a four mechanisms model.

Mislocalization of flashes during smooth pursuit hardly depends on the lighting conditions.

Targets that are briefly flashed during smooth pursuit eye movements are mislocalized in the direction of motion (forward shift) and away from the fovea (spatial expansion). Hansen [Hansen, R. M. (1979). Spatial localization during pursuit eye movements. Vision Research 19(11), 1213-1221] reported that these errors are not present for fast motor responses in the dark, whereas Rotman et al. [Rotman, G., Brenner, E., Smeets, J. B. (2004). Quickly tapping targets that are flashed during smooth pursuit reveals perceptual mislocalizations. Experimental Brain Research 156(4), 409-414] reported that they are present for fast motor responses in the light. To evaluate whether the lighting conditions are the critical factor, we asked observers to point to the positions of flashed objects during smooth pursuit either in the dark or with the room lights on. In a first experiment, the flash, which could appear at 1 of 15 different positions, was always shown when the eye had reached a certain spatial position. We found a forward bias and spatial expansion that were independent of the target and ambient luminance. In a second experiment, the flash was always shown at the same retinal position, but the spatial position of the eye at the moment of flash presentation was varied. In this case we found differences between the luminance conditions, in terms of how the errors depended on the velocity and position on the trajectory. We also found specific conditions in which people did not mislocalize the target in the direction of pursuit at all. These findings may account for the above-mentioned discrepancy. We conclude that although the lighting conditions do influence the localization errors under some circumstances, it is certainly not so that such errors are absent whenever the experiment is conducted in the dark.