Cross-Species Differences in Color Categorization

By Fagot, Joël; Goldstein, Julie et al. | Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, April 2006 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Cross-Species Differences in Color Categorization


Fagot, Joël, Goldstein, Julie, Davidoff, Jules, Pickering, Alan, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review


Berlin and Kay (1969) found systematic restrictions in the color terms of the world's languages and were inclined to look to the primate visual system for their origin. Because the visual system does not provide adequate neurophysiological discontinuities to supply natural color category boundaries, and because recent evidence points to a linguistic origin (Davidoff, Davies, & Roberson, 1999), a new approach was used to investigate the controversial issue of the origin of color categories. Baboons and humans were given the same task of matching-to-sample colors that crossed the blue/green boundary. The data and consequent modeling were remarkably clear-cut. All human subjects matched our generalization probe stimuli as if to a sharp boundary close to the midpoint between their training items. Despite good color discrimination, none of the baboons showed any inclination to match to a single boundary but rather responded with two boundaries close to the training stimuli. The data give no support to the claim that color categories are explicitly instantiated in the primate color vision system.

(ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes formula omitted.)

The discontinuities that humans see in the color spectrum are so obvious that there is an inclination for cognitive psychologists to believe them inevitable and, hence, to propose that color categories are intrinsic to early levels of the neurophysiology that underpins color vision (Berlin & Kay, 1969; Franklin, Clifford, Williamson, & Davies, 2005; Kay & McDaniel, 1978; MacLaury, 1992; Pitchford & Mullen, 2002; Ratliff, 1976). However, even though color categories require discontinuities in perception, not even primary color categories (red, yellow, green, and blue) could be derived from any discontinuities in the spectral sensitivity of the three cone types by Sperling and Harwerth (1971) or, as Kay and McDaniel (1978) proposed, from the output of opponent process cells (Abramov & Gordon, 1994; Webster & Mollon, 1991). So even though some current research still stresses the role of precortical color processing in the formation of color categories, their appearance must be the result of organization at higher levels (Abramov & Gordon, 1994; Gegenfurtner & Kiper, 2003).

With respect to how color categories might be implemented in cortical visual areas, it is known that cells in V1 may be responsive to quite narrow ranges of wavelength and brightness (Yoshioka, Dow, & Vautin, 1996) with fairly much the same selectivity higher up at V4 (Schein & Desimone, 1990). Some color vision scientists (e.g., Hanazawa, Komatsu, & Murakami, 2000; Okajima, Robertson, & Fielder, 2002; Zeki, 1983) have proposed that such cells are the origin of color categories. There would seem to be even more reason to site color categories in the inferotemporal cortex, for lesions to that area produce achromatopsia (Cowey, Heywood, & Irving-Bell, 2001) and other (noncolor) disorders of perceptual categorical processing (Wilson & DeBauche, 1981). Yet there is no evidence for any cells, even in the inferotemporal cortex, that have the properties necessary for categorical perception proposed by Hamad (1987). The argument from categorical perception should predict, for example, "green" cells as being least sensitive to color change in the middle of the category and most sensitive to boundary colors (e.g., chartreuse or turquoise).

Despite this lack of a neurophysiological underpinning, what we shall call the nativist argument gains support from the observation, extended by Franklin and Davies (2004), that 4-month-old babies show a preference for looking at blue stimuli after habituating to green (Bornstein, Kessen, & Weiskopf, 1976). There are also a few studies with nonhuman primates that point to the nativist position with respect to color categories (Matsuzawa, 1985; Sandell, Gross, & Bornstein, 1979). There are, however, concerns about Sandell et al.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Cross-Species Differences in Color Categorization
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?