Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ]]>
Subscription Center
The time needed for us to reach consensus on a color name falls into a hierarchy that matches the human vision system's sensitivity to red over blue, and so on
Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. ]]>
See what we're tweeting about
mkonnikova Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers. Sometimes, solitude is best--coupled w/mind breaks http://t.co/EfW9n4TEz8
AWaytz program note. i will occasionally use this twitter account to comment on music and sports.
iwickelgren "Why Stress Is Good for You," the 2-minute movie. Check it out. http://t.co/ErTfl9ZuoM
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
4 Comments
Add Comment"distinct hierarchy—red, magenta-red, violet, green-yellow, blue, orange and cyan, in that order."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI recall distinctly from a cognitive science class I took that many cultures do not distinguish (or at least not natively) between green and blue, and that consequently these cultures have a color category of 'grue'. So, applying this study's results, I wonder if the hierarchy doesn't actually proceed as red, magenta-red, violet, yellow-green, 'grue', green (distinct), blue (distinct), orange and cyan, in that order.
Or perhaps I'm missing something.
Your recollection would be consistent with the hierarchy outlined in the article. As it says, the colours are recognised in the order given, so those cultures who do not recognise blue as a distinct colour could have a name for green. Blue could then be considered part of green or any of the other preceding colours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe discussed article has some serious handicaps. The authors define 'red' at 645nm and magenta-red at 635nm. They do not seem to be aware that 20% of hues of the hue circle fall outside of the spectrum and require minimally 2 wavelengths in mixture. There are no color terms in the World Color Survey that can be translated as meaning magenta-red or yellow-green, or cyan. The color names in that survey having the highest occurances are red, white, black, green, yellow, blue, followed by pink, violet, and orange. These need explanation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRolfK
What's in a name? A Red without a name would still FEEL red!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur perception of colour is based on evolutionary survival principles, if you read a textbook of human perception. It is based on our primeval food fossicking for berries, fruits, and it meant our survival chances, depending on how much we could eat regarding plant pigments, and other phytonutrients.
Eating in full colour is still more important for our health than name-tagging the colour nuances, however important that may be for industries that live on the sale of colour!
For more on this topic, see under 'Colour Eating' on the web.