Sex-related differences in chromatic sensitivity

Article English OPEN
Rodriguez Carmona, M. L. ; Sharpe, L. T. ; Harlow, J. A. ; Barbur, J. L. (2008)

Generally women are believed to be more discriminating than men in the use of colour names and this is often taken to imply superior colour vision. However, if both X-chromosome linked colour deficient males (~8%) and females (<1%) as well as heterozygote female carriers (~15%) are excluded from comparisons, then differences between men and women in red-green colour discrimination have been reported as not being significant (e.g., Pickford, 1944; Hood et al., 2006). We re-examined this question by assessing the performance of 150 males and 150 females on the Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test (Rodriguez-Carmona, 2005). This is a sensitive test that yields small colour detection thresholds. The test employs direction-specific, moving, chromatic stimuli embedded in a background of random, dynamic, luminance contrast noise. A four-alternative, forced-choice procedure is employed to measure the subject’s thresholds for detection of colour signals in 16 directions in colour space, while ensuring that the subject cannot make use of any residual luminance contrast signals. In addition, we measured the Rayleigh anomaloscope matches in a subgroup of 111 males and 114 females. All the age-matched males (30.8 ± 9.7) and females (26.7 ± 8.8) had normal colour vision as diagnosed by a battery of conventional colour vision tests. Females with known colour deficient relatives were excluded from the study. Comparisons between the male and female groups revealed no significant differences in anomaloscope midpoints (p=0.709), but a significant difference in matching ranges (p=0.040); females on average tended to have a larger mean range (4.11) than males (3.75). Females also had significantly higher CAD thresholds than males along the red-green (p=0.0004), but not along the yellow-blue discrimination axis. The differences between males and females in red-green discrimination may be related to the heterozygosity in X-linked cone photopigment expression common among females.
  • References (49)
    49 references, page 1 of 5

    Anyan, W. R. Jr. & Quillian, W. W. I. (1971). The naming of primary colors by children.

    Child Development 42, 1629-1632.

    Asenjo, A. B., Rim, J., & Oprian, D. D. (1994). Molecular determinants of human red/green color discrimination. Neuron 12, 1131-1138.

    Barbur, J. L. (2003). Understanding colour -Normal and Defective Colour Vision. Trends Cogn Sci. 7, 434-436.

    Barbur, J. L. (2004). 'Double-blindsight' revealed through the processing of color and luminance contrast defined motion signals. Prog.Brain Res. 144, 243-259.

    Barbur, J. L., Harlow, A. J., & Plant, G. T. (1994). Insights into the different exploits of colour in the visual cortex. Proc.R.Soc.Lond B Biol.Sci. 258, 327-334.

    Bimler, D. L. & Kirkland, J. (2002). Sex differences in color vision and the salience of color space axes. Journal of Vision 2, 28a.

    Bimler, D. L., Kirkland, J., & Jameson, K. A. (2004). Quantifying Variations in Personal color Spaces: Are there Sex Differences in color Vision? Color Research & Application 29, 128-134.

    Birch, J., Young, A., & David, S. (1991). Variations in normal trichromatism. In Colour Vision Deficiencies X, eds. Drum, B., Moreland, J. D., & Serra, A., pp. 267-272. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

    Carroll, J., McMahon, C., Neitz, M., & Neitz, J. (2000). Flicker-photometric electroretinogram estimates of L:M cone photoreceptor ratio in men with photopigment spectra derived from genetics. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci.Vis. 17, 499-509.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    476
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    City Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 476
Share - Bookmark