Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34707824›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2021

In the eye of the beholder: Is color classification consistent among human observers?

Kim Valenta, Sally L Bornbusch, Yan-Daniel Jacques, Omer Nevo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kim ValentaDepartment of Anthropology University of Florida Gainesville FL USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9843-0698
Sally L BornbuschDepartment of Evolutionary Anthropology Duke University Durham NC USA.
Yan-Daniel JacquesThe Mad Dog Initiative Antananarivo Madagascar.
Omer NevoGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig Leipzig Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3549-4509

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorful displays have evolved in multiple plant and animal species as signals to mutualists, antagonists, competitors, mates, and other potential receivers. Studies of color have long relied on subjective classifications of color by human observers. However, humans have a limited ability to perceive color compared to other animals, and human biological, cultural, and environmental variables can influence color perception. Here, we test the consistency of human color classification using fruit color as a model system. We used reflectance data of 67 tropical fruits and surveyed 786 participants to assess the degree to which (a) participants of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds agree on color classification of fruits; and (b) human classification to a discrete set of commonly used colors (e.g., red, blue, green) corresponds to natural clusters based on light reflectance measures processed through visual systems of other animals. We find that individual humans tend to agree on the colors they attribute to fruits across language groups. However, these colors do not correspond to clearly discernible clusters in di- or tetrachromatic visual systems. These results indicate that subjective color categorizations tend to be consistent among observers and can be used for large synthetic studies, but also that they do not fully reflect natural categories that are relevant to animal observers.

Indexed as

classificationcolor visionfruitslanguageperceptionsynthesis

Identifiers

PMID34707824
PMCPMC8525178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.