User talk:Tom Piantanida

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Impossible colors, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that he may not have realized you were the author of the paper cited ... still, the proper place to post comments about article is on the talk page, talk:impossible colors.  —  Soap  —  22:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you are the author of the published research, and you say that the article gets it wrong, could you simply merge your recent statement into the incorrect statement of what you did, to make it correct? I'm going to take a stab at it, but I'm not an expert and also you have quicker access to your published material (all I have is the link to your abstract).  Thanks!  Duoduoduo (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have redone your contribution see here to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Are you happy with what this is now saying?  Spinning  Spark  07:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a version that more accurately describes the series of experiments (I have underlined the changes made to the previous version): In 1983, Hewitt D. Crane and Thomas P. Piantanida carried out tests using a device that had a field consisting of a vertical red stripe adjacent to a vertical green stripe (or in some cases, yellow-blue). The stimulus array was viewed through an SRI Eye Tracker and Stimulus Deflector, which had the ability to track eye movements, and adjust mirrors so that the image would appear to be completely stable. The boundary of the red-green stripes was stabilised on the retina of one eye while the other eye was patched and the field outside the stripes was blanked with occluders. When the stabilized boundary disappeared, both the red and the green filled the field between the occluders, producing colors described by subjects as reddish-green (and yellowish-blue,) both impossible colors. Opponent-color scientists who experienced the impossible colors agreed that perception of the impossible colors did not violate opponent-processing theory because the impossible colors were generated cortically, while opponent-processing describes processing from the retina to the visual cortex.


 * Does your paper actually say that opponent-color scientists experienced impossible colors during this experiment? I ask because the whole paragraph is referenced to it.   Spinning  Spark  17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Rods
Hi, Tom. The article Impossible colors and also the article Opponent process say "The color opponent process is a color theory that states that the human visual system interprets information about color by processing signals from cones and rods in an antagonistic manner." Should the word "rods" be deleted from this sentence? Thanks. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)