Mixing
How credible is the Remenko's two-component color vision theory?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I've come across an article (in Russian), which describes a nonlinear two-component color vision theory made in 1975 by S. Remenko. The article heavily criticizes trichromatic theory as very imperfect. There's a whole page related to the criticism. Some of the citations there refer to Feynman's lectures vol. I ch. 35, where also some doubts are expressed. See e.g. the part by Feynman:
Using the three different kinds of color blindness, the three pigment response curves have finally been determined, and are shown in Fig. 35–8. Finally? Perhaps. There is a question as to whether the three-pigment idea is right, whether color blindness results from lack of one pigment, and even whether the color-mix data on color blindness are right. Different workers get different results. This field is still very much under development.
But the only English-language place I've found mentioning Remenko's two-component theory was the book "Computer Systems for Healthcare and Medicine" by Piotr Bilski and Francesca Guerriero, where the first name also looks suspiciously Russian.
So I'm somewhat skeptic about credibility of all this Remenko's theory and the criticism of the trichromatic theory. But having not much expertise in color vision theories, I thus prefer to ask the experts: is the theory by Remenko actually credible? Is it even known outside of Russian-speaking world? Has it been falsified? Is trichromatic theory really flawed in any significant way so that a replacement theory would be required (are Feynman's remarks out of date?)?
vision color
asked 8 hours ago
Ruslan
1324
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I've come across an article (in Russian), which describes a nonlinear two-component color vision theory made in 1975 by S. Remenko. The article heavily criticizes trichromatic theory as very imperfect. There's a whole page related to the criticism. Some of the citations there refer to Feynman's lectures vol. I ch. 35, where also some doubts are expressed. See e.g. the part by Feynman:
Using the three different kinds of color blindness, the three pigment response curves have finally been determined, and are shown in Fig. 35–8. Finally? Perhaps. There is a question as to whether the three-pigment idea is right, whether color blindness results from lack of one pigment, and even whether the color-mix data on color blindness are right. Different workers get different results. This field is still very much under development.
But the only English-language place I've found mentioning Remenko's two-component theory was the book "Computer Systems for Healthcare and Medicine" by Piotr Bilski and Francesca Guerriero, where the first name also looks suspiciously Russian.
So I'm somewhat skeptic about credibility of all this Remenko's theory and the criticism of the trichromatic theory. But having not much expertise in color vision theories, I thus prefer to ask the experts: is the theory by Remenko actually credible? Is it even known outside of Russian-speaking world? Has it been falsified? Is trichromatic theory really flawed in any significant way so that a replacement theory would be required (are Feynman's remarks out of date?)?
vision color
asked 8 hours ago
Ruslan
1324
We have the physiology of colour vision nailed down pretty precisely, across a broad suite of species. There are some subtleties (there aren't, strictly, only three receptors involved in vision, and the number and properties of the receptors differ between species). But the general theory is still basically trichromatic theory. If the mechanisms in 'two-component theory' are very different, then that theory is very wrong. See biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39882/…
– bshane
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I've come across an article (in Russian), which describes a nonlinear two-component color vision theory made in 1975 by S. Remenko. The article heavily criticizes trichromatic theory as very imperfect. There's a whole page related to the criticism. Some of the citations there refer to Feynman's lectures vol. I ch. 35, where also some doubts are expressed. See e.g. the part by Feynman:
Using the three different kinds of color blindness, the three pigment response curves have finally been determined, and are shown in Fig. 35–8. Finally? Perhaps. There is a question as to whether the three-pigment idea is right, whether color blindness results from lack of one pigment, and even whether the color-mix data on color blindness are right. Different workers get different results. This field is still very much under development.
But the only English-language place I've found mentioning Remenko's two-component theory was the book "Computer Systems for Healthcare and Medicine" by Piotr Bilski and Francesca Guerriero, where the first name also looks suspiciously Russian.
So I'm somewhat skeptic about credibility of all this Remenko's theory and the criticism of the trichromatic theory. But having not much expertise in color vision theories, I thus prefer to ask the experts: is the theory by Remenko actually credible? Is it even known outside of Russian-speaking world? Has it been falsified? Is trichromatic theory really flawed in any significant way so that a replacement theory would be required (are Feynman's remarks out of date?)?
vision color
asked 8 hours ago
Ruslan
1324
I've come across an article (in Russian), which describes a nonlinear two-component color vision theory made in 1975 by S. Remenko. The article heavily criticizes trichromatic theory as very imperfect. There's a whole page related to the criticism. Some of the citations there refer to Feynman's lectures vol. I ch. 35, where also some doubts are expressed. See e.g. the part by Feynman:
Using the three different kinds of color blindness, the three pigment response curves have finally been determined, and are shown in Fig. 35–8. Finally? Perhaps. There is a question as to whether the three-pigment idea is right, whether color blindness results from lack of one pigment, and even whether the color-mix data on color blindness are right. Different workers get different results. This field is still very much under development.
But the only English-language place I've found mentioning Remenko's two-component theory was the book "Computer Systems for Healthcare and Medicine" by Piotr Bilski and Francesca Guerriero, where the first name also looks suspiciously Russian.
So I'm somewhat skeptic about credibility of all this Remenko's theory and the criticism of the trichromatic theory. But having not much expertise in color vision theories, I thus prefer to ask the experts: is the theory by Remenko actually credible? Is it even known outside of Russian-speaking world? Has it been falsified? Is trichromatic theory really flawed in any significant way so that a replacement theory would be required (are Feynman's remarks out of date?)?
vision color
vision color
asked 8 hours ago
Ruslan
1324
asked 8 hours ago
Ruslan
1324
edited 3 hours ago
asked 8 hours ago
Ruslan
1324
asked 8 hours ago
Ruslan
1324
asked 8 hours ago
Ruslan
1324
1324
We have the physiology of colour vision nailed down pretty precisely, across a broad suite of species. There are some subtleties (there aren't, strictly, only three receptors involved in vision, and the number and properties of the receptors differ between species). But the general theory is still basically trichromatic theory. If the mechanisms in 'two-component theory' are very different, then that theory is very wrong. See biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39882/…
– bshane
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
We have the physiology of colour vision nailed down pretty precisely, across a broad suite of species. There are some subtleties (there aren't, strictly, only three receptors involved in vision, and the number and properties of the receptors differ between species). But the general theory is still basically trichromatic theory. If the mechanisms in 'two-component theory' are very different, then that theory is very wrong. See biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39882/…
– bshane
10 mins ago
We have the physiology of colour vision nailed down pretty precisely, across a broad suite of species. There are some subtleties (there aren't, strictly, only three receptors involved in vision, and the number and properties of the receptors differ between species). But the general theory is still basically trichromatic theory. If the mechanisms in 'two-component theory' are very different, then that theory is very wrong. See biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39882/…
– bshane
10 mins ago
We have the physiology of colour vision nailed down pretty precisely, across a broad suite of species. There are some subtleties (there aren't, strictly, only three receptors involved in vision, and the number and properties of the receptors differ between species). But the general theory is still basically trichromatic theory. If the mechanisms in 'two-component theory' are very different, then that theory is very wrong. See biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39882/…
– bshane
10 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
That era produced a lot of very questionable science from Russia; there is no good reason to doubt the three-component color vision theory, and it's also the basis of all RGB TVs and computer monitors. However, I can't read Russian so I don't have any idea what this two-component theory is.
Typical humans have three cone cells, which is the biological origin of having three components for color vision. Colorblind individuals who lack one of the three cones have color discrimination issues consistent with the three component model. I am not aware of any credible research that questions this.
The lack of further study into the theory you refer to probably puts it into the category of "not even wrong" - based on such flawed reasoning or premises that it isn't worth disputing.
Nathans, J., Merbs, S. L., Sung, C. H., Weitz, C. J., & Wang, Y. (1992). Molecular genetics of human visual pigments. Annual review of genetics, 26(1), 403-424.
answered 7 hours ago
Bryan Krause
17.1k23049
Please see the edit to the question. I've added some relevant part of the Feynman's remarks about validity of trichromatic theory.
– Ruslan
3 hours ago
@Ruslan Color-blindness is slightly more complicated because not everyone's color-blindness is because they are missing a particular cone. The others are because of shifts in the wavelengths the pigments are sensitive to.
– Bryan Krause
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
That era produced a lot of very questionable science from Russia; there is no good reason to doubt the three-component color vision theory, and it's also the basis of all RGB TVs and computer monitors. However, I can't read Russian so I don't have any idea what this two-component theory is.
Typical humans have three cone cells, which is the biological origin of having three components for color vision. Colorblind individuals who lack one of the three cones have color discrimination issues consistent with the three component model. I am not aware of any credible research that questions this.
The lack of further study into the theory you refer to probably puts it into the category of "not even wrong" - based on such flawed reasoning or premises that it isn't worth disputing.
Nathans, J., Merbs, S. L., Sung, C. H., Weitz, C. J., & Wang, Y. (1992). Molecular genetics of human visual pigments. Annual review of genetics, 26(1), 403-424.
answered 7 hours ago
Bryan Krause
17.1k23049
Please see the edit to the question. I've added some relevant part of the Feynman's remarks about validity of trichromatic theory.
– Ruslan
3 hours ago
@Ruslan Color-blindness is slightly more complicated because not everyone's color-blindness is because they are missing a particular cone. The others are because of shifts in the wavelengths the pigments are sensitive to.
– Bryan Krause
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
That era produced a lot of very questionable science from Russia; there is no good reason to doubt the three-component color vision theory, and it's also the basis of all RGB TVs and computer monitors. However, I can't read Russian so I don't have any idea what this two-component theory is.
Typical humans have three cone cells, which is the biological origin of having three components for color vision. Colorblind individuals who lack one of the three cones have color discrimination issues consistent with the three component model. I am not aware of any credible research that questions this.
The lack of further study into the theory you refer to probably puts it into the category of "not even wrong" - based on such flawed reasoning or premises that it isn't worth disputing.
Nathans, J., Merbs, S. L., Sung, C. H., Weitz, C. J., & Wang, Y. (1992). Molecular genetics of human visual pigments. Annual review of genetics, 26(1), 403-424.
answered 7 hours ago
Bryan Krause
17.1k23049
Please see the edit to the question. I've added some relevant part of the Feynman's remarks about validity of trichromatic theory.
– Ruslan
3 hours ago
@Ruslan Color-blindness is slightly more complicated because not everyone's color-blindness is because they are missing a particular cone. The others are because of shifts in the wavelengths the pigments are sensitive to.
– Bryan Krause
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
up vote
7
down vote
accepted
That era produced a lot of very questionable science from Russia; there is no good reason to doubt the three-component color vision theory, and it's also the basis of all RGB TVs and computer monitors. However, I can't read Russian so I don't have any idea what this two-component theory is.
Typical humans have three cone cells, which is the biological origin of having three components for color vision. Colorblind individuals who lack one of the three cones have color discrimination issues consistent with the three component model. I am not aware of any credible research that questions this.
The lack of further study into the theory you refer to probably puts it into the category of "not even wrong" - based on such flawed reasoning or premises that it isn't worth disputing.
Nathans, J., Merbs, S. L., Sung, C. H., Weitz, C. J., & Wang, Y. (1992). Molecular genetics of human visual pigments. Annual review of genetics, 26(1), 403-424.
answered 7 hours ago
Bryan Krause
17.1k23049
That era produced a lot of very questionable science from Russia; there is no good reason to doubt the three-component color vision theory, and it's also the basis of all RGB TVs and computer monitors. However, I can't read Russian so I don't have any idea what this two-component theory is.
Typical humans have three cone cells, which is the biological origin of having three components for color vision. Colorblind individuals who lack one of the three cones have color discrimination issues consistent with the three component model. I am not aware of any credible research that questions this.
The lack of further study into the theory you refer to probably puts it into the category of "not even wrong" - based on such flawed reasoning or premises that it isn't worth disputing.
Nathans, J., Merbs, S. L., Sung, C. H., Weitz, C. J., & Wang, Y. (1992). Molecular genetics of human visual pigments. Annual review of genetics, 26(1), 403-424.
answered 7 hours ago
Bryan Krause
17.1k23049
edited 3 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
Bryan Krause
17.1k23049
answered 7 hours ago
Bryan Krause
17.1k23049
answered 7 hours ago
Bryan Krause
17.1k23049
17.1k23049
Please see the edit to the question. I've added some relevant part of the Feynman's remarks about validity of trichromatic theory.
– Ruslan
3 hours ago
@Ruslan Color-blindness is slightly more complicated because not everyone's color-blindness is because they are missing a particular cone. The others are because of shifts in the wavelengths the pigments are sensitive to.
– Bryan Krause
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Please see the edit to the question. I've added some relevant part of the Feynman's remarks about validity of trichromatic theory.
– Ruslan
3 hours ago
@Ruslan Color-blindness is slightly more complicated because not everyone's color-blindness is because they are missing a particular cone. The others are because of shifts in the wavelengths the pigments are sensitive to.
– Bryan Krause
3 hours ago
Please see the edit to the question. I've added some relevant part of the Feynman's remarks about validity of trichromatic theory.
– Ruslan
3 hours ago
Please see the edit to the question. I've added some relevant part of the Feynman's remarks about validity of trichromatic theory.
– Ruslan
3 hours ago
@Ruslan Color-blindness is slightly more complicated because not everyone's color-blindness is because they are missing a particular cone. The others are because of shifts in the wavelengths the pigments are sensitive to.
– Bryan Krause
3 hours ago
@Ruslan Color-blindness is slightly more complicated because not everyone's color-blindness is because they are missing a particular cone. The others are because of shifts in the wavelengths the pigments are sensitive to.
– Bryan Krause
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78270%2fhow-credible-is-the-remenkos-two-component-color-vision-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
We have the physiology of colour vision nailed down pretty precisely, across a broad suite of species. There are some subtleties (there aren't, strictly, only three receptors involved in vision, and the number and properties of the receptors differ between species). But the general theory is still basically trichromatic theory. If the mechanisms in 'two-component theory' are very different, then that theory is very wrong. See biology.stackexchange.com/questions/39882/…
– bshane
10 mins ago