Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T06:48:00.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to Philipona and O'Regan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2008

KENT JOHNSON  and
WAYNE WRIGHT
KENT JOHNSON
Affiliation:
Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine, California
WAYNE WRIGHT*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, California State University, Long Beach, California
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Wayne Wright, Department of Philosophy, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 90840. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper responds to Philipona and O'Regan (2006), which attempts to account for certain color phenomena by appeal to singularities in the space of “accessible information” in the light striking the retina. Three points are discussed. First, it is unclear what the empirical significance/import is of the mathematical analysis of the data regarding the accessible information in the light. Second, the singularity index employed in the study is both mathematically and empirically faulty. Third, the connection drawn between their findings and some data from the World Color Survey is lacking in quantitative analysis in places where it is needed. The difficulties raised prevent Philipona & O'Regan's conclusions from being accepted.

Keywords

ColorReflectancePhotopigmentsPrincipal component analysisWorld Color Survey
Type
Brief Communication
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , March 2008 , pp. 221 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Basilevsky, A. (1994). Statistical Factor Analysis and Related Methods. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Bell, A. & Sejnowski, T. (1995). An information-maximization approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Computation 7, 1129–1159.Google Scholar
Comon, P. (1994). Independent component analysis, a new concept? Signal Processing 36, 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, R., Kay, P. & Regier, T. (2005). The world color survey database: history and use. In Handbook of Categorisation in the Cognitive Sciences, ed. Cohen, H. & Lefebvre, C.Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Jameson, K. (2009). Where in the world color survey is the support for the hering primaries as the basis for color categorization? In Color Ontology and Color Science, ed. Cohen, J. & Matthen, M.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuehni, R. (2005). Focal color variability and unique hue stimulus variability. Journal of Cognition and Culture 5, 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philipona, D. & O'Regan, J.K. (2006). Color naming, unique hues, and hue cancellation predicted from singularities in reflection properties. Visual Neuroscience 23, 331–339.Google Scholar
Regier, T., Kay, P. & Cook, R. (2005). Focal colors are universal after all. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102, 8386–8391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturges, J. & Whitfield, T. (1995). Locating basic colours in the Munsell space. Color Research and Application 20, 364–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar