In the natural environment, color discriminations are made within a rich context of spatial and temporal variation. In classical laboratory methods for studying chromatic discrimination, there is typically a border between the test and adapting fields that introduces a spatial chromatic contrast signal. Typically, the roles of spatial and temporal contrast on chromatic discrimination are not assessed in the laboratory approach. In this study, S-cone discrimination was measured using stimulus paradigms that controlled the level of spatio-temporal S-cone contrast between the tests and adapting fields. The results indicate that S-cone discrimination of chromaticity differences between a pedestal and adapting surround is equivalent for stimuli containing spatial, temporal or spatial-and-temporal chromatic contrast between the test field and the surround. For a stimulus condition that did not contain spatial or temporal contrast, the visual system adapted to the pedestal instead of the surround. The data are interpreted in terms of a model consistent with primate koniocellular pathway physiology. The paradigms provide an approach for studying the effects of spatial and temporal contrast on discrimination in natural scenes.

Human visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were recorded for abrupt reversals of 2 cycles/deg (c/deg) square-wave gratings combining high red–green contrast with different levels of luminance contrast. Response characteristics—2nd harmonic amplitudes and peak latencies as a function of luminance contrast—were compared for four different reversal rates ranging from 6.25 Hz to 12.5 Hz. At every reversal frequency, the VEP amplitude and latency plots were nonsymmetrical with respect to isoluminance. The amplitude dropped to a minimum within a region of rapid phase change, always at a red–green luminance contrast for which the green color had the higher luminance, at about 40% or 50% Michelson luminance contrast. The rapid phase shift around this contrast suggested a sudden change in the relative impact of VEP generators with different latencies, possibly dominated by parvocellular or magnocellular input. The most prominent VEP waveform through most of the luminance contrast range, P110, is interpreted in terms of a parvo-mediated response that is attenuated with increasing reversal frequency. Contrast-dependent changes in the P110 amplitude appear to be responsible for the VEP asymmetries reported here.

Human visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were recorded for abrupt 6.25-Hz reversals of 2 c/deg square-wave gratings combining red–green contrast with different levels of luminance contrast. Response characteristics— amplitudes and peak latencies as a function of luminance contrast—were compared for four different pairs of red–green colors and an isochromatic yellow grating. For each of the red–green color pairs, the plots of VEP amplitudes and latencies were nonsymmetrical with respect to isoluminance. The amplitude dropped to a minimum within a region of rapid phase change, at a different contrast for each color pair but always at a luminance contrast for which the greener color had the higher luminance. When the contrast-response curve for each of the four red–green pairs was modeled by a simple |CL − CM| opponency of L- and M-cone contrast using a fixed CL/CM weighting ratio of about two, there was a close correspondence between the contrast giving a null in the modeled response and that giving a minimum in the VEP amplitude. So for the stimulus parameters applied here, the reversal VEP appeared to be dominated by L/M-opponent response contributions for which the signed CL/CM-cone weighting ratio was close to a value of minus two rather than to a value of minus one, which is characteristic of the psychophysical red–green detection mechanism and representative of CL/CM weighting ratios for precortical cells in the parvocellular pathway.

We report VEP studies which delineate interactions between chromatic and luminance contrast signals. We examined responses to sinusoidal luminance gratings undergoing 4-Hz square-wave contrast reversal, upon which standing gratings with various admixtures of luminance and chromatic contrast were alternately superimposed and withdrawn. The presence of the standing grating induced a VEP component at the fundamental frequency of the contrast-reversal grating. This VEP component appeared without any appreciable lag, and did not vary in amplitude over the 4 s during which the standing grating was present. The observed fundamental response differed from the fundamental component that would be expected from the known interaction between the luminance component of the standing grating with the modulated grating (Bodis-Wollner et al., 1972; Bobak et al., 1988), in three ways: (1) The fundamental response was not nulled for standing gratings that were isoluminant or near-isoluminant. (2) The chromatic dependence of the fundamental response implied an S-cone input to the interaction. (3) No single mechanism (driven by a linear combination of cone signals) could account quantitatively for the size of this response, particularly when the standing grating strongly modulated two cones in phase.