The Spectral Optimization of Human Vision: Some Paradoxes, Errors and Resolutions

  • B. H. Soffer
  • D. K. Lynch
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in OPTICAL SCIENCES book series (SSOS, volume 74)

Summary

The peak brightness of the solar spectrum is in the green when plotted in wavelength units. It peaks in the near-infrared when plotted in frequency units. Therefore, the oft-quoted notion that evolution led to an optimized eye whose sensitivity peaks where there is the most available sunlight is misleading and erroneous. The confusion arises when spectral density distribution functions like the spectral radiance are compared with ordinary functions like the sensitivity of the eye. Spectral radiance functions, excepting very narrow ones, can change peak positions greatly when transformed from wavelength to frequency units, but sensitivity functions do not. Expressing the spectral radiance in terms of photons per second, rather than power, also causes a change in the shape and peak of the distribution even while keeping the choice of bandwidth units fixed. The confusion arising from comparing simple functions to distribution functions occurs in many parts of the scientific and engineering literature aside from vision. Some examples are given. The eye does not appear to be optimized for detection of the available sunlight, including the surprisingly large amount of infrared radiation in the environment. The color sensitivity of the eye is discussed in terms of the spectral properties and the photo and chemical stability of available biological materials. It is likely that we are viewing the world with a souvenir of the human evolutionary voyage.

Keywords

Solar Spectrum Human Vision Spectral Radiance Spectral Irradiance Density Distribution Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. 1.
    Lang, K. (1995) Sun Earth and Sky. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mollon, J.D. (1989) The Uses and Origins of Primate Colour Vision. J exp Biol 146: 21–38Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mcllwain, J.T. (1996) An Introduction to the Biology of Vision. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thompson, E. (1995) Colour Vision. Routledge, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rose, A. (1973) Vision Human and Electronic. Plenum, New York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boynton, R. (1979) Human Color Vision. Holt, Rienhart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boynton, R.M. (1990) Human Color Perception. In: Leiboveic, K.N. (Ed.) Science of Vision. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lynch, D.K., Livingston, W.C. (1995) Color and Light in Nature. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    White, L. (1996) Infrared Photography Handbook Amherst Media, Amherst New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sekuler, M., Blake, R. (1994) Perception, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Several similar but distinct spectral radiometric quantities: radiant power, radiant emittance, irradiance, radiant intensity, and radiance are employed to describe spectral density distributions. As they all are spectral densities, i.e., quantities per unit bandwidth interval, e.g., per unit wavelength interval or per unit frequency interval, they illustrate the argument of this paper equally well.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson, G.P., et al. (1994) MODTRAN2: Evolution and Applications. Proc SPIE 222: 790–799Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henderson, S.T. (1970) Daylight and Its Spectrum. Amer. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Judd, D.B., Wyszecki, G. (1975) Color in Business. Science and Industry, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Incidentally, human hearing, on the other hand, does have a physiologically preferred spectral representation. We have an intrinsic logarithmic spectral response to acoustic radiance. This can be appreciated by noticing that we associate essentially the same musical pitch and note name to all the n octaves (2n multiples) of a given note’s frequency. If we pick, for example, middle C = 256 Hz, the frequency of the note one octave higher, by definition, is 512 Hz. We hear all those n higher octave notes, ignoring intensity dependent effects, still as a kind of replica of C, although higher in pitch. In representing musical spectral power or noise density distributions, the very same representational issues that we have been discussing for optical power naturally arise. But here, if the intention is to represent human perceptual hearing, then the logarithmic representation is clearly to be preferred and thus, by settling on it, many of the representational pitfalls and paradoxes can be avoided. Audio engineers have introduced several spectral logarithmic measures and quantities. For example the logarithmic equivalent of equally distributed, or so called “white,” noise is appropriately called “pink” noise. It preferentially weights the lower frequencies logarithmically, thereby putting equal noise power into each octave. To the ear, pink noise sounds uniformly distributed.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Benford, F. (1939) Laws and Corrolaries of the Black Body. J Opt Soc Am 29: 92–96.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Szalai, V.A., Brudviig, G.W. (1998) How Plants Produce Dioxygen. Amer Scientist 86: 542–551ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Project Cyclops (1973) CR 114445, NASA/Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, 41Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krasovsky, V.I., Shefov, N.N., Yarin, V.I. (1962) Atlas of the Airglow Spectrum 3000–12400 A. Planet Space Sci 9: 883–915ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pirenne, M.H. (1948) Vision and the Eye. Chapman and Hall, London. This quote does not appear in the second edition (1967)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Duke-Elder, S. (1958) The Eye in Evolution. Henry Kimpton, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pastor, R.C., Kimura, H., Soffer, B.H. (1971) Thermal Stability of Polymethine Q-Switch Solutions. J Appl Phys 42: 3844–3847ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pastor, R.C., Soffer, B.H., Kimura, H. (1972) Photostability of Polymethine Saturably Absorbing Dye Solutions. J Appl Phys 43: 3530–3533ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ali, M.A. (1975) Temperature and Vision. Revue Canadienne de Biologie V34: 131–186Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Knowles, A., Dartnall, H.J.A. (1977) In: Dayson, H. (Ed.) The Eye 2B. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Kuijk, F.J.G.M. (1991) Effects of Ultraviolet Light on the Eye: Role of Protective Glasses. Environmental Health Perspectives 96: 177–184Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bowmaker, J.K. (1991) The Evolution of Vertebrate Visual Pigments and Photoreceptors. In: Cronly-Dillon, J.R., Gregory, R.L (Eds.) Vision and Visual Dysfunction 2. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Govardovskii, V.I., Zueva, L.V. (1974) Spectral Sensitivity of the Frog in the Ultravolet and Visible Region. Vision Res 14: 1317–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soifer, B.H., Lynch, D.K. (1997) Has Evolution Optimized Vision For Sunlight. Annual Meeting of the OSA, Long Beach CA, Oct 12–17, SUE4 p 70Google Scholar
  30. Lynch, D.K., Soffer, B.H. ( 1999 ) On the Solar Spectrum and the Color Sensitivity of the Eye. Optics and Photonics News, MarchGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. H. Soffer
  • D. K. Lynch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations