OSA's Digital Library

Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics


  • Editors: Andrew Dunn and Anthony Durkin
  • Vol. 8, Iss. 4 — May. 22, 2013

A reinterpretation of transparency perception in terms of gamut relativity

Tony Vladusich  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA A, Vol. 30, Issue 3, pp. 418-426 (2013)

View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (649 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Classical approaches to transparency perception assume that transparency constitutes a perceptual dimension corresponding to the physical dimension of transmittance. Here I present an alternative theory, termed gamut relativity, that naturally explains key aspects of transparency perception. Rather than being computed as values along a perceptual dimension corresponding to transmittance, gamut relativity postulates that transparency is built directly into the fabric of the visual system’s representation of surface color. The theory, originally developed to explain properties of brightness and lightness perception, proposes how the relativity of the achromatic color gamut in a perceptual blackness–whiteness space underlies the representation of foreground and background surface layers. Whereas brightness and lightness perception were previously reanalyzed in terms of the relativity of the achromatic color gamut with respect to illumination level, transparency perception is here reinterpreted in terms of relativity with respect to physical transmittance. The relativity of the achromatic color gamut thus emerges as a fundamental computational principle underlying surface perception. A duality theorem relates the definition of transparency provided in gamut relativity with the classical definition underlying the physical blending models of computer graphics.

© 2013 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.1720) Vision, color, and visual optics : Color vision
(330.7310) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision

ToC Category:
Vision, Color, and Visual Optics

Original Manuscript: October 31, 2012
Revised Manuscript: December 18, 2012
Manuscript Accepted: December 30, 2012
Published: February 18, 2013

Virtual Issues
Vol. 8, Iss. 4 Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Tony Vladusich, "A reinterpretation of transparency perception in terms of gamut relativity," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 30, 418-426 (2013)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  


  1. E. H. Adelson, “Perceptual organization and the judgment of brightness,” Science 262, 2042–2044 (1993). [CrossRef]
  2. E. H. Adelson, “Lightness perception and lightness illusions,” in The New Cognitive Neurosciences, M. Gazzaniga, ed. (MIT, 2000), pp. 339–352.
  3. B. L. Anderson, “A theory of illusory lightness and transparency in monocular and binocular images: the role of contour junctions,” Perception 26, 419–453 (1997). [CrossRef]
  4. B. L. Anderson, “Stereoscopic surface perception,” Neuron 24, 919–928 (1999). [CrossRef]
  5. B. L. Anderson, “The role of occlusion in the perception of depth, lightness, and opacity.” Psychol. Rev. 110, 785–801 (2003). [CrossRef]
  6. B. L. Anderson and J. Winawer, “Image segmentation and lightness perception,” Nature 434, 79–83 (2005). [CrossRef]
  7. B. L. Anderson and J. Winawer, “Layered image representations and the computation of surface lightness,” J. Vis. 8(7):18, 1–21 (2008). [CrossRef]
  8. F. Faul and V. Ekroll, “Psychophysical model of chromatic perceptual transparency based on substractive color mixture,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 1084–1095 (2002). [CrossRef]
  9. F. Faul and V. Ekroll, “On the filter approach to perceptual transparency,” J. Vis. 11(7):7, 1–33 (2011). [CrossRef]
  10. F. Faul and V. Ekroll, “Transparent layer constancy,” J. Vis. 12(12):7, 1–26 (2012). [CrossRef]
  11. W. Gerbino, C. I. Stultiens, J. M. Troost, and C. M. De Weert, “Transparent layer constancy,” J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 16, 3–20 (1990). [CrossRef]
  12. F. Metelli, “An algebraic development of the theory of perceptual transparency,” Ergonomics 13, 59–66 (1970). [CrossRef]
  13. F. Metelli, “The perception of transparency,” Sci. Am. 230, 90–98 (1974). [CrossRef]
  14. F. Metelli, O. Da Pos, and A. Cavedon, “Balanced and unbalanced, complete and partial transparency,” Percept. Psychophys. 38, 354–366 (1985). [CrossRef]
  15. R. Robilotto, B.-G. Khang, and Q. Zaidi, “Sensory and physical determinants of perceived achromatic transparency,” J. Vis. 2(5):3 , 388–403 (2002). [CrossRef]
  16. R. Robilotto and Q. Zaidi, “Perceived transparency of neutral density filters across dissimilar backgrounds,” J. Vis. 4(3):5, 183–195 (2004). [CrossRef]
  17. M. Singh, “Lightness constancy through transparency: internal consistency in layered surface representations,” Vis. Res. 44, 1827–1842 (2004). [CrossRef]
  18. M. Singh and B. L. Anderson, “Photometric determinants of perceived transparency,” Vis. Res. 46, 879–894 (2006). [CrossRef]
  19. J. Beck, K. Prazdny, and R. Ivry, “The perception of transparency with achromatic colors,” Percept. Psychophys. 35, 407–422 (1984). [CrossRef]
  20. R. Kasrai and F. A. Kingdom, “Precision, accuracy, and range of perceived achromatic transparency,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 1–11 (2001). [CrossRef]
  21. A. Kitaoka, “A new explanation of perceptual transparency connecting the X-junction contrast-polarity model with the luminance-based arithmetic model,” Jpn. Psychol. Res. 47, 175–187 (2005). [CrossRef]
  22. S. C. Masin, “A weighted-average model of achromatic transparency,” Percept. Psychophys. 49, 563–571 (1991). [CrossRef]
  23. S. C. Masin, “Color scission and phenomenal transparency,” Percept. Mot. Skills 89, 815–823 (1999). [CrossRef]
  24. S. C. Masin, “Effects of partial occlusion on perceived surface segregation,” Perception 32, 1189–1198 (2003). [CrossRef]
  25. S. C. Masin, “Test of models of achromatic transparency,” Perception 35, 1611–1624 (2006). [CrossRef]
  26. M. Singh and B. L. Anderson, “Perceptual assignment of opacity to translucent surfaces: the role of image blur,” Perception 31, 531–552 (2002). [CrossRef]
  27. M. Singh and B. L. Anderson, “Toward a perceptual theory of transparency,” Psychol. Rev. 109, 492–519 (2002). [CrossRef]
  28. A. L. Gilchrist, “Perceived lightness depends on perceived spatial arrangement,” Science 195, 185–187 (1977). [CrossRef]
  29. A. L. Gilchrist, “The perception of surface blacks and whites,” Sci. Am. 240, 112–124 (1979). [CrossRef]
  30. A. L. Gilchrist, S. Delman, and A. Jacobsen, “The classification and integration of edges as critical to the perception of reflectance and illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 425–436 (1983). [CrossRef]
  31. A. Gilchrist, C. Kossyfidis, F. Bonato, T. Agostini, J. Cataliotti, X. Li, B. Spehar, V. Annan, and E. Economou, “An anchoring theory of lightness perception,” Psychol. Rev. 106, 795–834 (1999). [CrossRef]
  32. A. L. Gilchrist, Seeing Black and White (Oxford University, 2006).
  33. E. H. Land and J. J. McCann, “Lightness and retinex theory,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 1–11 (1971). [CrossRef]
  34. A. D. Logvinenko and L. T. Maloney, “The proximity structure of achromatic surface colors and the impossibility of asymmetric lightness matching,” Percept. Psychophys. 68, 76–83 (2006). [CrossRef]
  35. M. E. Rudd and K. F. Arrington, “Darkness filling-in: a neural model of darkness induction,” Vis. Res. 41, 3649–3662 (2001). [CrossRef]
  36. M. E. Rudd and I. K. Zemach, “Quantitative properties of achromatic color induction: an edge integration analysis,” Vis. Res. 44, 971–981 (2004). [CrossRef]
  37. M. E. Rudd and I. K. Zemach, “The highest luminance anchoring rule in achromatic color perception: some counterexamples and an alternative theory,” J. Vis. 5(11):5, 983–1003 (2005). [CrossRef]
  38. M. E. Rudd and D. Popa, “Stevens’s brightness law, contrast gain control, and edge integration in achromatic color perception: a unified model,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 24, 2766–2782 (2007). [CrossRef]
  39. M. E. Rudd and I. K. Zemach, “Contrast polarity and edge integration in achromatic color perception,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 24, 2134–2156 (2007). [CrossRef]
  40. M. E. Rudd, “How attention and contrast gain control interact to regulate lightness contrast and assimilation: a computational neural model,” J. Vis. 10(14):40, 1–37 (2010). [CrossRef]
  41. M. Tommasi, “A ratio model of perceptual transparency,” Percept. Mot. Skills 89, 891–897 (1999). [CrossRef]
  42. T. Vladusich, M. P. Lucassen, and F. W. Cornelissen, “Edge integration and the perception of brightness and darkness,” J. Vis. 6(10):12, 1126–1147 (2006). [CrossRef]
  43. T. Vladusich, M. P. Lucassen, and F. W. Cornelissen, “Brightness and darkness as perceptual dimensions.,” PLoS Comput. Biol. 3, e179 (2007). [CrossRef]
  44. T. Vladusich, “Gamut relativity: a new computational approach to brightness and lightness perception,” J. Vis. 13(1):14, 1–21 (2013). [CrossRef]
  45. T. Vladusich, “Simultaneous contrast and gamut relativity in achromatic color perception,” Vis. Res. 69, 49–63 (2012). [CrossRef]
  46. H. Wallach, “Brightness constancy and the nature of achromatic colors,” J. Exp. Psychol. 38, 310–324 (1948). [CrossRef]
  47. A. D. Logvinenko and R. Tokunaga, “Lightness constancy and illumination discounting,” Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 73, 1886–1902 (2011). [CrossRef]
  48. M. Fukuda and S. C. Masin, “Test of balanced transparency,” Perception 23, 37–43 (1994). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited