Multiple regions, each with the same ambiguous chromatic neural representation, are resolved to have the identical perceived color more often than chance [Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA93, 15508 (1996)PNASA60027-842410.1073/pnas.93.26.15508; J. Opt. Soc. Am. A35, B85 (2018)JOAOD60740-323210.1364/JOSAA.35.000B85]. This reveals that the regions are grouped, but it is unclear whether they are grouped because each one has the identical competing representations of the same stimuli (that is, the same chromaticities) or, alternatively, identical competing representations of the same colors one sees. The current study uses chromatic induction, as in Nat. Neurosci.6, 801 (2003)NANEFN1097-625610.1038/nn1099, to disentangle whether grouping depends on identical (though ambiguous) stimulus chromaticities or on perceived colors, by (1) inducing one chromaticity to appear in two different colors or (2) inducing two different chromaticities to appear in the same color. All stimuli were equiluminant gratings with chromatic inducing and test fields. Three observers were tested, first completing color matches to measure induced color-appearance shifts and second completing grouping measurements using interocular-switch rivalry, a method with rivalrous dichoptic images swapped between the eyes at 3.75 Hz [J. Vis.17, 9 (2017)1534-736210.1167/17.5.9]. Each of two separate areas, one above and one below fixation, had dichoptic rivalry. The two sets of regions had either identical or different chromaticities that could appear either as the same color or not. Observers reported their percepts when both areas above and below fixation were grouped by color or by chromaticity (or neither in an additional experimental condition). All conditions showed significant groupings for every observer, including when neither color nor chromaticity was identical in a "group." Moreover, there was never a significant effect of chromaticity versus color for any observer. This is the result expected if neither color nor chromaticity must match between two regions in order for them to be grouped and suggests that, instead, some other feature drives grouping.

中文翻译：

---

对模棱两可的神经表征进行分组：不需要相同的色度（刺激）和颜色（感知）。

多个区域，每个区域都具有相同的模糊色彩神经表示，被解析为具有相同感知颜色的频率高于偶然 [Proc. 国家队 阿卡德。科学。USA93, 15508 (1996)PNASA60027-842410.1073/pnas.93.26.15508；J. 选择。社会。是。A35, B85 (2018)JOAOD60740-323210.1364/JOSAA.35.000B85]。这表明这些区域是分组的，但不清楚它们是否分组是因为每个区域都具有相同刺激的相同竞争表示（即相同的色度），或者，或者，人们看到的相同颜色的相同竞争表示。目前的研究使用色归纳法，如 Nat。Neurosci.6, 801 (2003)NANEFN1097-625610.1038/nn1099，要弄清楚分组是否取决于相同（虽然模糊）的刺激色度或感知颜色，通过 (1) 使一种色度以两种不同的颜色出现或 (2) 使两种不同的色度以相同的颜色出现。所有刺激都是具有色诱导和测试场的等光光栅。测试了三个观察者，首先完成颜色匹配以测量诱导的颜色外观变化，然后使用眼间开关竞争完成分组测量，这是一种在眼睛之间以 3.75 Hz 交换竞争性分光图像的方法 [J. Vis.17, 9 (2017)1534-736210.1167/17.5.9]。两个独立的区域，一个在注视上方，一个在注视下方，每个区域都有分光竞争。两组区域具有相同或不同的色度，可以显示为相同的颜色，也可以不显示。当注视上方和下方的区域按颜色或色度（或在附加实验条件下均不分组）分组时，观察者报告了他们的感知。所有条件都显示出每个观察者的显着分组，包括“组”中颜色和色度都不相同的情况。此外，对于任何观察者来说，色度与颜色之间从来没有显着的影响。如果两个区域之间的颜色和色度都必须不匹配才能对它们进行分组，那么这是预期的结果，并且表明其他一些特征驱动了分组。对于任何观察者来说，色度与颜色之间从来没有显着的影响。如果两个区域之间的颜色和色度都必须不匹配才能对它们进行分组，那么这是预期的结果，并且表明其他一些特征驱动了分组。对于任何观察者来说，色度与颜色之间从来没有显着的影响。如果两个区域之间的颜色和色度都必须不匹配才能对它们进行分组，那么这是预期的结果，并且表明其他一些特征驱动了分组。