Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,040

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An opponent-process theory of color vision.

Hurvich, Leo M., Jameson, Dorothea·1957·Psychological Review

Abstract

The two major theoretical accounts of color vision are those classified as the Young-Helmholtz and the Hering types of theories. For many years the former has been judged by most work-ers in the field to provide the simplest explanation of the way in which light stimuli give rise to color sensations. The advantages that appear to favor the Young-Helmholtz three-component hypothesis are two: it is parsimonious, and its postulates are easily quantifiable and hence subject to precise experimen-tal test. In its parsimonious and easily quantifiable form, the theory is simple:

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0041403

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,040

Metadata

Authors
Hurvich, L. M., & Jameson, D.
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
1957-11
Volume
64
Issue
6, Pt.1
Pages
384-404
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2000674655
Cited by
1,040
References
1
FWCI
2.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An opponent-process theory of color vision. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/h0041403
The paper
Hurvich, L. M., & Jameson, D. (1957). An opponent-process theory of color vision. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041403

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.