JOURNAL OF THE OPTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA VOLUME 53, NUMBER 4 APRIL 1963

Effect of Wavelength on the Relationship between Critical Flicker

Frequency and Intensity in Foveal Vision*
AMEDEO GIORGIt
Departmient of Psychology, Fordhamn University, Bronx 58, New York
(Received 18 June 1962)

The precise effect of wavelength on the judgment of critical flicker frequency (CFF) has been a contro-
versial issue for a number of years. Some studies report no effect of wavelength; other studies indicate that
wavelength is a basic determiner of the CFF threshold. The purpose of this study was to attempt a resolu-
tion of the controversy by means of a systematic and thorough investigation of the problem. The apparatus
used was the Fordham calorimeter. By means of monochromators it was possible to deliver various spectral
colors with a constant passband of 10 mg to the subject. The intensity of the light source was controlled by
means of neutral tint filters and an optical wedge. Flicker was produced by intercepting the beam of light
with a sector disk driven by a Graham variable-speed motor. Eight wavelengths covering most of the
range of the visible spectrum were used, and CFF thresholds were obtained at seven different luminance
levels in eight experimental sessions for each wavelength. Three subjects with normal color vision were
employed.
The results showed that the wavelength of the stimulating light changes the slope of the curve relating
CFF to log I. The curves at the blue end of the visible spectrum are steeper than those at the red end.
Furthermore, the greater the separation between wavelengths, the greater is the probability of a significant
difference between slope values. The fact that the slopes of the curves differed with wavelength does not
mean that the Ferry-Porter law is invalid, but rather that one should adjust the "constants" of the equa-
tion for the particular wavelength being used. Consequently, it can be stated that CFF is a function of the
wavelength of the stimulating light. The most explicit interpretation that could be made was that this change
reflected some sort of change in the receptor system of the eye.

INTRODUCTION The statement that CFF is independent of wave-

T HE Ferry-Porter law is an expression of the
T relationship between critical flicker frequency
(CFF) and intensity. It states that CFF is directly
proportional to the logarithm of the luminance of the
stimulating light, or in mathematical terms, that
N=a logl+b, where N= CFF in cycles per second,
I=luminance of the stimulating light, and a and b are
constants. Previous studies have demonstrated that
the relationship is actually sigmoid, but it is linear for
the middle luminance levels, so that most experimenters
acknowledge the breakdown of the law at the extreme
luminance ranges, but affirm its validity for the inter-
mediate ranges of luminance.'
In their independent and initial proclamations both
Ferry2 and Porter' asserted that the law was valid for
colored light as well as white light. Because of these
statements, the inference was drawn that CFF was
independent of the wavelength of the stimulating light.
Thus, flicker photometry became one of the standard
procedures whereby lights of different color could be
matched for brightness. The assumption underlying
this procedure was that since CFF was systematically
related to luminance level, and since CFF was inde-
pendent of wavelength, the point at which two lights of
different color fused was also the point where they were
equal in luminance.
*Submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the Department of Psychology at Fordham
University.
t Present address: Psychology Department, Duquesne Univer-
sity, Pittsburgh 19, Pennsylvania.
I S. Hecht, Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 14, 21 (1938).
2 E. S. Ferry, Am. J. Sci. 44, 192 (1892).
3 T. C. Porter, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A63, 347 (1898).
length was first suspected by Ives. 4 His data showed
that the relationship between CFF and logI was indeed
a straight line for all wavelengths, but the slope of the
line differed with wavelength. Ives' interpretation was
strengthened by the results of Allen,5 who also obtained
straight lines that differed in slope as a function of
wavelength. Consequently, both men claimed that CFF
was dependent upon wavelength as well as luminance.
Some time later, Hecht, 6 aware of the different inter-
pretations in the literature, conducted a comprehensive
experiment in which he obtained CFF values as a
function of luminance for seven different wavelengths.
His results were of such a nature that he could draw a
single line through all the experimentally obtained
points at the photoptic luminance levels and this led
him to the conclusion that CFF was independent of
wavelength.
Most recently, however, Landis 7 has reversed the
decision again. On the basis of a review of all the
pertinent data and modified plottings of some of the
standard data, his claim is that the bulk of the evidence
indicates that wavelength is a determiner of CFF in the
same manner as flash rate, or light-dark ratio, or a
number of other variables.
Briefly, then, the effect of the wavelength of a light
upon CFF has been investigated a number of times, but
the results of these investigations have not been con-
sistent. Some experiments indicate that CFF is inde-
4 H. E. Ives, Phil. Mag. 24, 149 (1912).
5 F. Allen, Phil. Mag. 38, 81 (1919).
6 S. Hecht and C. D. Verrijp, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. 19,
522 (1933).
7 C. Landis, Physiol. Rev. 34, 259 (1954).

480
April 1963 EFFECT OF WAVELENGTH ON CFF 481

pendent of wavelength (Ferry, Porter, Hecht), whereas TC EYE OR PM

others seem to show that wavelength is one of the DARKROCMWALL

determiners of the CFF threshold value (Ives, Allen,

#ML TC OR M
Landis). The purpose of this investigation is to attempt
a resolution of the conflicting results by means of a
thorough and systematic investigation of the relation- CALIBRATION
ship between CFF and luminance as a function of
wavelength.
0 SP
| B 0 --- |B
SP

APPARATUS AND PROCEDURE

The Fordham four-beam colorimeter was the appar- l l l l ~~ ~~SD
MONOCIHRGMATOR
N. -
t lSl SSD
atus employed in this experiment. A complete and
detailed description of this apparatus is given by
Zegers.8 Only the two beams actually used in the experi-
ment are described here. From a functional viewpoint,
the apparatus can be divided into two systems: the
B SP
optical system and the calibrating system.

Optical System
A diagram of the optical system is presented in
Fig. 1. The color-producing units in the system are
7Nlodel 83 Perkin-Elmer universal monochromators. One
of the four monochromators served as the color source
for the test patch and another as the color source for I 1 ",,#" VP | MONOCHROMAToR
No. 2

the surround. The light source for each monochromator B

was a 6-V, 9-A, tungsten vertical ribbon-filament bulb,
and the power for the bulbs was delivered by a Sorenson
Nobatron, Model E-6-40A. The function of the Noba-
tron, which received its power from the ordinary
110-V ac house mains, was to transform the current
from 110-V ac to 6-V dc. In addition, a 6-V storage
battery was connected across the Nobatron in order to
eliminate any minor current variations not removed by
the voltage regulator.
The test-patch beam of light was delivered by
monochromator No. 1, and it proceeded through the
system as follows: The diverging beam of light exiting
from the monochromator was first collimated by an
achromatic lens which was positioned at its focal length
from the exit slits of the monochromator and then it
successively passed through a beam splitter formed by
a 3-in. glass cube, a diaphragm which yielded a centrally
located field of 140' on the retina, a sector disk, a
second beam splitter that deflected the light 900, an
achromatic double-convex lens which initiated the
convergence of the light, and finally a negative lens
which sharpened the convergence in such a manner
that it formed a real image of the light source at the
artificial pupil.
The surround beam of light was delivered by mono-
chromator No. 2 and it proceeded as follows: Exiting
from the monochromator as a diverging beam, the light
first passed through a double-convex lens which
collimated the beam, then it successively passed
8R. T. Zegers, Psychol. Mono. 73, 1 (1959).
FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of apparatus.
through a beam splitter similar to the one described
above, a diaphragm which yielded a visual angle of 7,
and finally a second beam splitter, at which point the
surround beam joined the path of the test beam and
followed the path described above to the artificial pupil.
The surround beam always matched the test beam in
wavelength and luminance; the former was determined
by calibration, and the latter by the subject's equality
matching.
Flicker was produced by a sector disk that was
driven by a 220-V Graham variable-speed transmission.
A Weston tachometer generator, Alodel 44, Type A,
which generates dc voltage in direct proportion to the
speed of the disk, and a Weston voltmeter calibrated in
rpm were used to measure the speed of the disk. The
flux of the test beam was controlled by means of Kodak
neutral-tint filters and the flux of the surround beam by
means of filters and a neutral-tint optical wedge.
Calibration System
The basic equipment used for the energy calibration
of the stimulus beam was a Farrand photomultiplier
photometer, a Farrand thermocouple and low-frequency
amplifier, and a Ballantine electronic voltmeter, Model
302-B. The three basic steps in the calibration procedure
were: (1) determination of the number of MW/V re-
sponse on the thermocouple, which was made possible
482 AMEDEO GIORGI Vol. 53

by the use of a standard lamp calibrated for irradiance and radiant flux entering the artificial pupil. According I
in gXV/cm 2 ; (2) the determination of u,W/unit response to the design of the experiment, if the slope of the curve
of the photometer, which is accomplished by establish- relating CFF thresholds to the logarithm of the flux of
ing a relationship between the volt response (which is the stimulating light remains the same in spite of
converted into MpW) generated by the test beam and changes in the wavelength of the light source, then it
the number of unit responses obtained on the photom- can be said that CFF is a function of the luminance of
eter; and (3) the determination of the uW at the the light only. If, however, the slope described above
artificial pupil under the conditions of experimentation changes with wavelength, then wavelength must be
by setting the photometer at the eyepiece under exactly exercising some separate influence on the CFF
the same conditions as during experimentation and threshold.
observing the number of unit responses and converting Table I contains the slopes obtained for each experi-
them into yuqW. Each of these steps was performed for mental session by each subject, plus the mean slope for
each wavelength employed in the experiment. each wavelength. Inspection of this table reveals a
general pattern of decreasing slope value as one pro- I
In order to calibrate the transmittance of the filters
and wedge, a Farrand photomultiplier photometer was gresses from 450 to 660 mrn for all three subjects.
employed. Exact transmittance values for each filter or Actually, the highest slope value for all three subjects
filter combination were obtained under conditions is the one at 450 mA, and the lowest slope value for two
identical to experimentation. of the three subjects is at 600 myu. For the remaining
subject, the slope value for 600 mg is his second lowest,
Procedure his lowest coming at 660 mu.
With respect to variability, Table I shows that
The design of this experiment was such that foveal Subjects II and III have practically the same degree of
CFF-vs-logI curves were to be obtained for eight variability, and that both are less variable than Subject
different wavelengths from three subjects. The eight I. In addition, it can be seen that the variability is
wavelengths employed were 450, 480, 510, 540, 570,
600, 630, and 660 u and the order of presentation of TABLE I. The slope for each experimental session and the mean
these wavelengths differed for each subject and from slope for each wavelength for all three subjects.
session to session. A constant passband of 10 mu was
used for both test and surround beams. The subjects Subject I
were tested for color blindness and weakness by means Wavelength (mu)
of an anomaloscope and none was found to be deficient. Session 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660
Each experimental session was preceded by a 10-min I 18.38 18.87 13.70 17.04 14.38 13.90 13.20 16.49
dark-adaptation period. The psychophysical method of II 12.84 12.31 11.31 11.85 13.39 12.17 12.56 13.12
III 11.96 13.21 13.72 13.05 10.19 10.50 12.62 12.75
limits was employed in which each subject was first IV 14.39 12.36 12.36 13.10 12.92 11.60 10.60 10.70
presented with a visual field that was obviously flicker- V 15.56 12.56 12.31 13.40 11.12 12.18 12.54 11.73
ing, and he was to judge when the light fused; and then VI 17.79 14.29 12.09 13.45 12.83 11.72 10.90 11.57
VII 15.48 15.07 12.12 14.33 13.27 14.49 13.61 13.94
he was presented a light that was obviously fused and VIII 14.66 13.76 15.40 14.96 15.63 14.92 15.66 13.49
he was to indicate when it first began to flicker. Three Mean 15.13 14.05 13.00 13.90 12.97 12.69 12.71 12.97
alternate series of judgments such as these were ob- 0vM 2.06 2.04 1.35 1.47 1.60 1.46 1.48 1.68
tained for each luminance level. A single experimental Subject II
session consisted of six threshold determinations for I 13.43 14.15 13.86 13.90 13.07 12.40 14.29 12.90
each of seven luminance levels for a single wavelength. II 13.38 13.22 15.18 12.96 13.20 12.71 12.82 12.49
III 13.08 12.96 13.47 13.07 12.88 12.12 12.00 11.50
There were eight experimental sessions for each wave- IV 15.19 14.32 14.42 13.80 13.07 13.01 12.78 12.82
length and since eight different wavelengths were V 16.21 13.82 14.26 12.93 13.00 13.01 13.03 13.48
employed, it means that a total of 64 experimental VI 15.49 14.14 13.99 13.53 12.95 12.65 11.38 12.35
VII 14.73 13.38 14.57 13.92 13.57 13.65 12.87 12.39
sessions were obtained from each subject. Three sub- VIII 14.96 14.61 14.90 13.61 13.74 13.35 13.98 13.12
jects were employed in the experiment. Mean 14.56 13.83 14.33 13.47 13.19 12.86 12.89 12.63
afl 1.05 0.46 0.52 0.39 0.29 0.45 0.89 0.56
The CFF values were plotted against the logarithm
of the energy (logAuqW), and the result of these plots Subject III
was a straight line. The least-square solution for deter- I 13.23 12.67 14.24 11.59 11.23 8.9 11.40 12.62
II 13.14 12.45 12.11 13.98 12.20 10.37 12.38 12.33
mining the line of best fit was applied to the data, and III 15.19 13.65 13.79 11.74 14.55 9.64 12.13 11.24
the slope values were calculated. All subsequent calcu- IV 12.98 12.97 13.71 12.61 11.82 10.57 11.38 11.18
lations were concerned with the slope values. V 14.34 12.93 13.40 14.20 13.02 11.39 11.76 12.74
VI 11.54 12.36 12.53 12.20 12.14 10.30 12.41 12.42
VII 14.00 11.55 13.46 12.35 11.89 9.63 11.06 11.60
RESULTS VIII 13.89 12.12 12.65 11.58 12.28 10.08 12.08 12.19
Mean 13.54 12.59 13.24 12.53 12.39 10.12 11.83 12.04
This study was conducted in order to determine the osef 1.02 0.58 0.68 0.97 0.94 0.69 0.47 0.56
effect of wavelength on the relationship between CFF
April 1963 EFFECT OF WAVELENGTH ON CFF 483

considerably greater about the blue end of the spectrum 600 450

than at any other portion.

ma. 5UBJEC I
A two-way classification analysis of variance was
applied to the data of each subject. In each case the
main effects tested were wavelengths and sessions, and '5l

the first-order interaction was used as the error term. ze

This analysis reveals that for all three subjects the

difference among wavelengths is significant.
Snedecor's modifications of Tukey's test of com-
parison among means was applied to the data in order 91

to discover which particular wavelengths were different

from each other. These data are presented in Table II. d5
0 /0 1.5 2.'0
Log
225
Ad W
3'0 3s 4.0 4.5

It can be seen that for Subject I the slope value obtained

for 450 m is significantly different from the slope FIG. 2. The wavelengths with the greatest discrepancy in slope
for Subject I. The points represent the obtained mean values for
values obtained for 600, 630, 660, 570, and 510 myt and eight sessions and the curves are the lines of best fit as determined
by the method of least squares.
TABLE II. Results of Snedecor's modification of Tukey's test
of comparison among mean slope values for all three subjects.
*50 660
5UBJECT 4
Subject I
X (mm) XS-12.69 i ?-12.71 X-12.97 X-12.97 JX-13.00 X-13.90 k-14.05
450 15.13 2.44a 2.42' 2.16' 2.16' 2.13' 1.23 0.98
480 14.05 1.36 1.34 1.08 1 08 1.05 0.15
540 13.90 1.21 1.19 0.93 0.93
510 13.00 0.31 0.29 0.03 0.03 IC
570 12.97 0.28 0.26
660 12.97 0.28 0.26
630 12.71 0.02
600 12.69
Subject II
X (m,) k X-12.63 X-12.86 JX-12.89 X-13.19 X-13.47 X-13.83 X-14.33
450 14.56 1.93b 1.70b 1.67b 1.37b 1.09b 0.73 0.23
510 14.33 1.70b 1.47b 1.44b 1.14b 0.86b 0.50
480 13.83 1.20b 0.97b 0.94b 0.64 0.36 To _ _, , , . , . . . - .

540 13.47 1.09b 0.61 0.58 0.28 0 05 /0 I5 20 2.5 3.0 35 4S.0 45

570 13.19 0.56 0.33 0.30 Log ppW
630 12.89 0.26 0.03
600 12.86 0.23 FIG. 3. The wavelengths with the greatest discrepancy in slope
660 12.63
Subject III for Subject II. The points represent the obtained mean values
for eight sessions and the curves are the lines of best fit as deter-
X(ma) )X X-10.12 X-1 1.83 X-12.04 X-12.39 X-12.53 X-12.59 X-13.24 mined by the method of least squares.
450 13.54 3.42' 1.71' 1.50' 1.50' 1.01 0.95 0.30
510 13.24 3.12' 1.41' 1.20 0.85 0.71 0.65
480 12.59 2.47° 0.76 0.55 0.20 0.06
540 12.53 2.41c 0.70 0.49 0.14 '0
600 450
570 12.39 2.2 7* 0.56 0.35 ,5UBJECT 2T
660 12.04 1.92' 0.21
630 11.83 1.71°
600 10.12

a Difference greater than 1.96 is significant at 0.05 level. 0_

b Difference greater than 0.89 is significant at 0.05 level.
Difference greater than 1.20 is significant at 0.05 level.

that no other slope values were significantly different

from each other. For Subject II, the slope value for
450 muI is significantly different from the slope values
for all of the other wavelengths used in the experiment A,
- , , . . . . . ._

0.5 /0 /5 20 '25 3.0 3.5 4.0 45

except for the slope value for 480 and 510 mu, but also LU, Y1 W

for Subject II these latter slope values were significantly
different from most of the slope values for the wave-
lengths at the red end of the spectrum. Finally, Subject
III has the slope value for 600 mu differing significantly
from every other wavelength employed, and the slope
value for 450 m differing from the slope value for
570 mInplus the rest of the slope values for the wave-
lengths in the red region of the spectrum.
IG. W. Snedecor, StatisticalMethods (Iowa State College Press,
Ames, Iowa, 1956).
FIG. 4. The wavelengths with the greatest discrepancy in slope
for Subject III. The points represent the obtained mean values for
eight sessions and the curves are the lines of best fit as determined
by the method of least squares.
Generally, most of the significant differences are
between the red and blue regions of the spectrum. In
only one instance was a wavelength significantly
different from an adjacent (as employed in this experi-
ment) wavelength, and that was the difference between
600 and 630 m that occurred with Subject III. In
484 AMEDEO GIORGI Vol. 53

TABLE III. The log energy values and the corresponding mean
I
the ends of the spectrum deviated from the general
CFF threshold for the two wavelengths with the greatest difference
in slope for each subject. statement of his law, but he explained that these
deviations were probably due to the uncertainty of
Subject I observations in faintly illuminated regions. It was seen
450 mg 600 ma that the biggest differences in the present study were
loguuW Mean CFF (cps) logguN V Mean CFF (cps) also at the ends of the spectrum.
2.3759 24.3 1.243E8 24.9 Further on in the article Ferry2 states that color, at
2.5360 27.6 1.881(0 32.1
2.7401 30.8 2.233 37.7 most, is a slight factor in retinal persistence and that
2.9610 34.3 2.552(5 42.4 the all-important function is intensity. The present
3.1081 36.9 2.915l 3 46.3 experiment also shows that in comparison to intensity,
3.3237 39.6
3.6609 43.2 wavelength effects are indeed slight. If one considers
Subject II that Ferry was, for the first time, formulating the
450 mu 660 mg
regularity of the intensity variable, one can readily
log,uuW Mean CFF (cps) logpuN V Mean CFF (cps)
2.0411 19.4 2.141' 1 19.6
understand how he would consider the wavelength
2.3769 23.6 2.488' 2 22.9 effects as being minor. The important point is, there-
2.5360 26.1 2.800(0 27.0 fore, that Ferry likewise found wavelength effects, but
2.7401 29.6 2.945: 6 29.5
3.1081 34.5 3.363.3 34.6 that thev were so small he probably considered them
3.3237 38.0 3.705'7 39.0 to be within the range of experimental error.
3.6609 42.2 4.011:1 42.5 Porter's10 experiment was performed under conditions
Subject III very different from Ferry's. 2 He had a disk that was
450 mu 600 m, painted half white and half black which he illuminated
logiu,aW Mean CFF (cps) logpuN V Mean CFF (cps)
2.0411 19.5 1.243< 3 22.3
with white light and lights of the various spectral
2.3769 24.3 1.881( 0 29.5 colors. He discovered that CFF varied as a function of
2.5350 26.6 2.233. 2 34.6 the intensity of the light only, and not with wavelength.
2.7401 29.2 2.552i 5 39.1
3.1081 33.5 2.915S 8 43.9 However, there are many limitations in Porter's experi-
3.3237 37.0 3.403' 49.5 ment, due to lack of adequate apparatus, which could
3.6609 42.2 have obscured the presence of wavelength effects. First
of all, his light sources were limelight and sunlight,
which are difficult to keep at a constant intensity for
order to demonstrate the order of magnitude of the any length of time. Secondly, the rate of rotation of the
differences between slopes for a given subject, the plots disk was found by the pitch of a note obtained by blow-
for the wavelengths with the greatest discrepancy in ing air through a known number of equidistant holes
slope are presented for Subjects I, II, and III, respec- pierced in the circumference of the disk, and comparing
tively, in Figs. 2, 3, and 4. The curves are the lines of these notes 10
with those of a set of standard forks. Even
best fit as determined by the method of least squares, so, Porter reported that his results held within the
and the points represent the obtained mean values for range of experimental error. How much error he was
eight sessions. Table III contains the data from which willing to tolerate is a matter of conjecture, but at least
the figures were plotted. it allows for the fact that some differences were found.
Finally, Hecht's"" 2 data may be questioned for two
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS reasons. The primary limitation in Hecht's experiment,
at least for this purpose, is the use of broad passband
The main finding of this dissertation points to the color filters. The transmittance curves of the Wratten
fact that CFF is affected by wavelength. If this is so, filters he used differed in passband from about 40 mA to
it seems that two questions remain to be answered: almost 100 mj.. Since these passbands were so wide,
first, how to reconcile this finding with those experi- there was often an overlap in the wavelengths being
ments that reported the opposite conclusion; secondly, transmitted although the primary wavelength passed
to ascertain what this finding means. by two different filters were as much as 30 or 40 mjx
Those who claim that CFF is independent of wave- apart. This would tend to obscure wavelength effects.
length base their conclusion either on the work of Secondly, there is the fact of Landis'7 replot of
Ferry,2 Porter,' 0 or Hecht."," Ferry 2 was the first to Hecht's data, which indicated that there was a differen-
report such a finding when he published the article in tial effect of wavelength, in spite of Hecht's claim of no
which he formulated his law. Closer scrutiny of Ferry's difference. Landis plotted CFF vs wavelength for a
original article, however, indicates that he did find given luminance level, and since Hecht had equated the
wavelength effects, but he apparently considered them various colors, the line should have been parallel to the
unimportant. For example, he found that the values at x axis, but it was not. Consequently, Landis concluded
that color was affecting the CFF value.
T. C. Porter, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A70, 313 (1902).
S. Hecht, Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 14, 21 (1938). Hence it can be seen that for various reasons the
12 S. Hecht and S. Shlaer, J. Gen. Physiol. 19, 965 (1936). major articles in the literature reporting the independ-
April 1963 EFFECT OF WAVELENGTH
ence of CFF from wavelength can be brought in line
with those experiments that report CFF as dependent
on wavelength. These latter, on the other hand, remain
unchanged with respect to the major conclusion.
The problem of interpretation of the results of the
present study is something else again. The fact that the
blue end of the spectrum has a higher slope than the
red end means that, other things being equal, in terms
of flicker, the blue end of the spectrum is more efficient.
Efficiency here refers to the eye's ability to perceive
discrete stimuli as discrete, and for some reason when
working with blue the eye can do this better than when
working with red. Or stated in another way, changing
from red light to blue light will raise the CFF threshold
in somewhat the same manner as going from one
luminance level to a higher luminance level will raise
CFF. Those characteristics of wavelength or the eye
which could possibly account for this will now be
considered.
The primary psychological effect of change in wave-
length is the corresponding change in hue which takes
place. A secondary effect is an apparent change in
luminance level of the light. This apparent change in
luminance is different for different colors. However,
because of the radiometric calibration employed, the
effect of this differential increment in brightness that is
associated with hue is clear-cut. It merely has the effect
of displacing the curve along the energy axis in accord-
ance with its spectral luminosity. Therefore, this cannot
be the cause of the differences in slope value.
Consequently, one must turn to some physiological
explanation. Here two distinct possibilities remain:
Either some of the ocular media of the eye are acting
as differential filters, and are therefore changing the
slope, or this change in slope is reflecting a difference in
function of the receptor system of the eye. The first
possibility can be eliminated. When the various trans-
mittances of the ocular media as presented by Judd' 3
are applied to the data, the only result is a change of the
curve along the intensity axis, and the slope does not
change in any way. Hence, as far as can be determined
by the author, the change in slope is reflecting some
change in the receptor system of the eye. Whether this
change is in the end organs (cones) themselves, or in
the brain, or in some of the intermediate structures or
tracts cannot be determined by the design of this
experiment.
Some positive support for the hypothesis that CFF
changes with wavelength is offered by a study by
Crittenden and Taylor.' 4 They report an investigation
where an attempt was made to determine the best
procedure for calibrating filters. Six sets of filters con-
taining seven different colors were sent to six different
laboratories to be calibrated by certain specified
13D. Judd, Handbook of Experimental Psychology, edited by
S. S. Stevens (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1951).
14S. C. Crittenden and A. H. Taylor, Trans. Illum. Eng. Soc.
25, 89 (1941).
ON CFF 485
procedures. One of these procedures was the method of
flicker photometry. It was found that the spectro-
photometric methods (i.e., methods that do not involve
judgment on the part of the observer) will give results
of high precision. With the flicker method, the averages
did not differ greatly from those obtained with the
spectrophotometric method, but the different labora-
tories showed systematic differences in the transmit-
tances assigned to the filters. The systematic differ-
ences remained even after the results were corrected to
the basis of a normal observer by the Ives-test-solution
method. Consequently, Crittenden and Taylor while
admitting that the differences were small for such
difficult measurements nevertheless concluded that the
differences were real. They also felt that the differences
were so regular that further investigations would event-
ually lead to an explanation of the discrepancies.
The present investigation could well be the experi-
ment they intended to conduct to find an answer to
their difficulties. If their results had been small but
irregular, then they could have attributed the dis-
crepancies to individual differences. But they were not;
so they found them difficult to explain. This research
shows that CFF is a function of wavelength. Therefore,
when working with CFF and color unless the data are
corrected one would expect systematic differences such
as Crittenden and Taylor report.
Another important factor that may have tended to
obscure the wavelength effects is the attitude of the
experimenter in interpreting his results. Thus, one
experimenter may have obtained results that approxi-
mated a straight line and concluded that the line was
straight and that departures indicated experimental
error." Another may have interpreted the same type of
results literally, and then reached the conclusion that
the line was not straight.' 5 This experiment avoids this
possible source of error by basing the decisions on
statistical tests rather than on the experimenter's
judgment. This is the first investigation to do so in the
area of flicker and color.
The fact that two subjects differed significantly with
sessions and one did not indicates that there is signifi-
cant interindividual variability with CFF as well as
intraindividual variability. This, of course, is not an
unprecedented finding. Landis 7 reports wide inter-
individual variability among CFF observers, and Tice' 6
claims a difference of as great as 25% between the CFF
of two different observers at the same intensity level.
The results of Tukey's test show which wavelengths
are significantly different from each other. It can be
seen that no two subjects have the same total number
of wavelengths significantly different from each other.
This means that individual differences also enter into
the wavelength effects, even though all the subjects
are consistent in that they all have at least some wave-
15 F. Allen, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 13, 385 (1926).
16 F. G. Tice, Psychol. Bull. 38, 691 (1941).
486 AMEDEO
lengths differing from each other. Subject I has the
fewest significant differences but this is probably
because he has the greatest day-to-day variability.
Subject III, who has the smallest day-to-day varia-
bility, is the only one who has two adjacent (as em-
ployed in this experiment) wavelengths significantly
different from each other. Again, this is understandable
because his variability is small enough to allow the
wavelength effects to demonstrate themselves.
The best generalization that can be made with
respect to this finding is that the wavelengths which
are at the opposite ends of the spectrum are the ones
which show greater degree of difference. The wave-
lengths in the middle regions of the spectrum, as a rule,
are not significantly different from the extremes or from
other wavelengths in the same region. Apparently, the
greater separation between the wavelengths the greater
is the probability of significance.
One final application of this finding is the light it
sheds on the differences that have been reported in
heterochromatic photometry between the equality-
of-brightness method and the method of flicker photom-
GIORGI Vol. 53
etry. 4 17 It had long been thought that the differences
between the two methods were primarily due to the
difficulty involved in trying to make a brightness match
between lights of different hue. Ferree and Rand,
however, have demonstrated that the differences be-
tween the two methods could not be explained away
solely by differences in hue, but that some other factor
was involved. This experiment shows that at least one
of the variables is the fact that CFF differs with color.
This fact does not necessarily eliminate flicker photom-
etry as a color-matching procedure, but it does indicate
that one has to apply a correction factor when using this
method for matching colors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to express his deepest gratitude
to Dr. Richard T. Zegers, S.J., whose constant inspira-
tion and sound advice were essential for the fulfillment
of this project. In addition, much gratitude is due to
Dr. Edward Hogan, CSSP, William C. Obert-Thorn,
and Miss Natalie L. Wright.
17C. E. Ferree and G. Rand, Psychol. Rev. 22, 110 (1915).