Table 3 Model comparisons

	Experiment 1 – Hue across Participants						Exp2 – Hue			Exp2 – Chroma
Model	Mdiff	t	df	CI_95%	p	d	n	S	P	n	S	p
	Exp1a						Exp 2a
DKL	4.91	7.17	30	[3.5, 6.3]	<0.001	1.29	72	57	<0.001	72	64	<0.001
CIELUV	4.91	7.17	30	[3.5, 6.3]	<0.001	1.29	72	57	<0.001	72	55	<0.001
CIELAB	2.52	5.63	30	[1.6, 3.4]	<0.001	1.01	72	51	<0.001	72	44	0.08
CAM02	1.22	4.62	30	[0.7, 1.8]	<0.001	0.91	72	51	<0.001	72	42	0.19
Munsell	18.01	23.60	30	[16.5, 19.6]	<0.001	4.24	72	72	<0.001	72	66	<0.001
Hering	34.26	38.67	30	[32.4, 36.1]	<0.001	6.94	72	70	<0.001	72	64	<0.001
	Exp 1b						Exp 2b
DKL	0.52	2.45	51	[0.09, 0.96]	0.02	0.34	72	49	0.001	72	67	<0.001
CIELUV	0.52	2.45	51	[0.09, 0.96]	0.02	0.34	72	49	0.001	72	38	0.72
CIELAB	1.23	7.86	51	[0.92, 1.54]	<0.001	1.09	72	52	<0.001	72	48	0.006
CAM02	0.17	2.44	51	[0.03, 0.31]	0.01	0.34	72	44	0.08	72	45	0.04
Munsell	5.29	10.52	51	[4.28, 6.30]	<0.001	1.46	72	67	<0.001	72	63	<0.001
Hering	26.09	30.03	51	[24.35, 27.84]	<0.001	4.16	72	71	<0.001	72	55	<0.001

Results of tests comparing prediction errors between the cone adaptation and other models of complementarity (cf. Fig. 2i, j). For Experiment 1, these comparisons were paired t-tests across the N = 31 and N = 52 participants; for Experiment 2, these were nonparametric sign tests across the 72 inducer colours. The first columns report results for hue predictions; here, results are the same for DKL and CIELUV. The last columns compare chroma predictions using z-scored chroma deviations across inducers.
Mdiff average difference, t t-value, df degrees of freedom, CI two-tailed confidence interval, p two-tailed p-value, d Cohen’s d, n sample size (number of inducers), S S-value of sign test.

Quick links

Search