Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39226931›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024

Deriving the cone fundamentals: a subspace intersection method.

Brian A Wandell, Thomas Goossens, David H Brainard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. 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

3 authors.

Brian A WandellPsychology Department, Stanford University , Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2974-1836
Thomas GoossensPsychology Department, Stanford University , Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
David H BrainardPsychology Department, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9827-543X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two ideas, proposed by Thomas Young and James Clerk Maxwell, form the foundations of colour science: (i) three types of retinal receptors encode light under daytime conditions, and (ii) colour matching experiments establish the critical spectral properties of this encoding. Experimental quantification of these ideas is used in international colour standards. However, for many years, the field did not reach consensus on the spectral properties of the biological substrate of colour matching: the spectral sensitivity of the cone fundamentals. By combining auxiliary data (thresholds, inert pigment analyses), complex calculations, and colour matching from genetically analysed dichromats, the human cone fundamentals have now been standardized. Here, we describe a new computational method to estimate the cone fundamentals using only colour matching from the three types of dichromatic observers. We show that it is not necessary to include data from trichromatic observers in the analysis or to know the primary lights used in the matching experiments. Remarkably, it is even possible to estimate the fundamentals by combining data from experiments using different, unknown primaries. We then suggest how the new method may be applied to colour management in modern image systems.

Indexed as

Color PerceptionRetinal Cone Photoreceptor CellsColor VisionHumanscolourperceptionretina

Identifiers

PMID39226931
PMCPMC11371420

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.