From the article:
She’s also a tetrachromat, which means that she has more receptors in her eyes to absorb color. The difference lies in Antico's cones, structures in the eyes that are calibrated to absorb particular wavelengths of light and transmit them to the brain. The average person has three cones, which enables him to see about one million colors. But Antico has four cones, so her eyes are capable of picking up dimensions and nuances of color—an estimated 100 million of them—that the average person cannot. “It’s shocking to me how little color people are seeing,” she said.
This Woman Sees 10 Times More Colors Than The Average Person
A unique genetic mutation and a well-wired brain mean that Concetta Antico is like no other artist on Earth.
This post has been reshared 5 times on Google+
View this post on Google+
I remember reading about this in 2000
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/anp07/Looking%20for%20Madam%20Tetrachromat.htm
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp
'average person' so… does that mean that average man sees 20 times less colours than average woman?Â
Should have a good market for her eggs.
Come on, read the article before making comments.Â
Busted! Ya, not so useful.
Considering her daughter is color blind due to the mutation, I would say her eggs would have a lower market value.Â
24-bit vs 32-bit colour
"24-bit vs 32-bit colour"
Not at all.
It is more like: R G B vs R G B X, regardless the bit depth of each channel.
+Hernan Toro – That's the bit I don't understand – it's like claiming an extra dimension. Not just seeing higher or lower frequencies than usual, or finer differentiation between similar colours – but some other "thing".Â
+Hernan Toro: "theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp "
— Mantis shrimps are a poor example since they process colour quite differently. In fact, mantis shrimps are capable to tell apart far fewer colour shades than the human eye:
1. Thoen HH et al. A different form of color vision in mantis shrimp. Science (2014) vol. 343 (6169) pp. 411-3
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24458639)
Commented/echoed here:Â
phys.org/news/2014-01-mantis-shrimp-vision-differently-video.htmlÂ
blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/01/23/mantis-shrimps-bizarre-eyesight-finally-figured-outÂ
2. Bok MJ et al. Biological sunscreens tune polychromatic ultraviolet vision in mantis shrimp. Curr Biol (2014) vol. 24 (14) pp. 1636-42
Open access: cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(14)00672-1Â
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24998530)
Commented/echoed here:Â
phys.org/news/2014-07-biological-sunscreen-mantis-shrimp-reef.htmlÂ
sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140703125530.htmÂ
eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-07/cp-ws062614.phpÂ
URL source G+ post:Â
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/is8Epv5SXKGÂ
URL G+ post related to tetrachromacy requirements in humans:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/XfRJs42STfpÂ
PS: BTW, that Oatmeal's cartoon contains important flaws in that matter (see post linked above).
+Damien Hogan: "24-bit vs 32-bit colour"
— The human eye doesn't work like the image sensor (e.g., a CCD) in a regular digital camera, with a colour filter array mounted over its pixels:
• David Briggs. Trichromacy and Opponency. The Dimensions of Color. October 8, 2011.
http://www.huevaluechroma.com/032.php
+Zephyr López Cervilla My comment was in a comic tone.
It's a shame that the first link that includes in its abstract the inane phrase "Why use 12 color channels when three or four are sufficient for fine color discrimination?" is not open to access. The second one seems to contradict the first one at least in the UV band of the EM spectrum. I'll try to find a pirate copy of the first one in order to examine it.Â
"Mantis shrimps are a poor example since they process colour quite differently."Â
That's a platitude. Did you really think  that I was proposing that crustaceans (with faceted eyes) and mammals (with camera eyes) would process colors the same way?Â
And yes, Oatmeal is full of flaws. You won't expect a comic cartoon site to be a source of academic discussion would you?
+Hernan Toro: "The second one seems to contradict the first one at least in the UV band of the EM spectrum."
— In what way the second paper contradicts the first one? Both agree that in the vision of mantis shrimp colour discrimination is poor. The second paper, more recent, offers additional information that wasn't probably known by the authors of the first article at the time they were writing their paper. Anyway, I failed to find contradiction. Both models could still be mutually compatible.
+Hernan Toro: "Did you really think  that I was proposing that crustaceans (with faceted eyes) and mammals (with camera eyes) would process colors the same way?"
— Yeah. The honey bee (another arthropod with compound eyes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropod_eye) analyses colour in the same way as humans:
<< microspectrophotometric analyses of the visual pigments in the photoreceptors of the honey bee’s compound eye have revealed the existence of three different types of photopigments that absorb light maximally in the UV, blue, and green regions of the spectrum, respectively (53, 58). Intracelluar recordings of the electrical responses of these photoreceptors have confirmed this by revealing that the photoreceptors can indeed be grouped into three different spectral classes, with peak sensitivities in the UV (around 350 nm), blue (around 440 nm), and green (around 540 nm) regions of the spectrum, respectively (2, 54). The genes that encode the three different photopigments have now been determined (6, 81).
In the meantime, sophisticated behavioral analysis of color discrimination, using a range of monochromatic colors, as well as color mixtures, has demonstrated that color vision in the honey bee is fully trichromatic, just as it is in humans (17, 18, 50–52, 85). That is, the honey bee’s visual system analyzes color by making full use of the information provided by all of its three spectral classes of photoreceptors. >>
—Â Srinivasan MV. Honey bees as a model for vision, perception, and cognition. Annu Rev Entomol (2010) vol. 55 pp. 267-84
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19728835)
+Hernan Toro: "You won't expect a comic cartoon site to be a source of academic discussion"
— This reminds me of the excuse offered by Matthew Inman to justify the pile of bullshit that he wrote about Tesla and Edison:
”Lastly, I’m a comedian and I speak in hyperbole. If you sharpshoot my work you will find that I exaggerate for the sake of comedy.
If you want to read pedantically-impenetrable articles about early 20th century engineers, go read Wikipedia or stroll down the US Patent Office.”
—Â Matthew Inman.
theoatmeal.com/blog/tesla_responseÂ
After his lies were critically reviewed here:
forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/05/18/nikola-tesla-wasnt-god-and-thomas-edison-wasnt-the-devilÂ
And here:
abstractengineer.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/this-tesla-love-fest-has-got-to-end.htmlÂ
The controversy in commented here:
dailydot.com/society/tesla-edison-oatmeal-forbes-knappÂ
patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2012/05/tesla-edison-oatmeal-vs-forbesÂ
So based on Matthew Inman's previous justification, can you tell me where is the hyperbole in claiming that our additional "red" cone cells enable humans to see the red colour plus blue as violet, or that violet and orange are colours derived from red? It isn't a "hyperbole", it's blatantly false.
There was no need to contribute to spread and perpetuate common misconceptions in order to create his comic cartoon. Rather, Matthew Inman simply fell into the same mistake as others have fallen, probably because he didn't bother to read about the theory of colour perception before publishing his cartoon (or after). But then, why did he try to explain it to his readers? Several examples of similar mistakes in non-specialised articles:
1. << The researchers have a theory though, to go along with their research. They suspect that the receptors are hard-wired to recognize certain wavelengths of light, which means their brains don't have to do color processing. This is very different from most other organisms, including humans. We have just three receptors—each one recognizes or responds to just one color. Our brain receives information from all three and processes that information to produce what we perceive as the colors in images we look at. Having more receptors provides less color distinction for the shrimp, but likely offers far faster color processing, an advantage for a creature that lives in a highly colored world (coral reefs) amid intense competition for food. >>
— Bob Yirka. Study finds mantis shrimp process vision differently than other organisms (w/ video). Phys.org. Jan 24, 2014.
phys.org/news/2014-01-mantis-shrimp-vision-differently-video.htmlÂ
2. << In general, photoreceptors absorb light and convert it into electrical signals, which are then sent to the brain for interpretation. Each photoreceptor is specific to a particular wavelength of light, which the brain translates into a color. Your dog has two kinds of photoreceptors: blue and green. You have three: blue, green and red. Our eyes can see these colors and every combination or variation thereof. >>
— Breanna Draxler. Mantis Shrimp’s Bizarre Eyesight Finally Figured Out. Discover Magazine (blogs). January 23, 2014.
blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/01/23/mantis-shrimps-bizarre-eyesight-finally-figured-outÂ
3. << Normal colour vision depends on three types of specialised cells in the eye called cones. These cones are often referred to as blue, green and red cones depending on the particular wavelengths of light that trigger them into action. >>
— Tetrachromacy Project. The Science. Newcastle University.
research.ncl.ac.uk/tetrachromacy/thescienceÂ
4. << Our powers of color vision derive from cells in our eyes called cones, three types in all, each triggered by different wavelengths of light. >>
— Veronique Greenwood. The Humans With Super Human Vision. Discover Magazine. July 18, 2012.
discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-visionÂ
5. << Each of the three standard color-detecting cones in the retina — blue, green and red — can pick up about 100 different gradations of color, Dr. Neitz estimated. But the brain can combine those variations exponentially, he said, so that the average person can distinguish about 1 million different hues.
A true tetrachromat has another type of cone in between the red and green — somewhere in the orange range — and its 100 shades theoretically would allow her to see 100 million different colors. >>
— Mark Roth. Some women may see 100 million colors, thanks to their genes. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. September 13, 2006.
post-gazette.com/health/2006/09/13/Some-women-may-see-100-million-colors-thanks-to-their-genes/stories/200609130255Â
+Zephyr López Cervilla , I stand corrected.Â
Anyway:
"— This reminds me of the excuse offered by Matthew Inman to justify the pile of bullshit that he wrote about Tesla and Edison: (…)
So based on Matthew Inman's previous justification, can you tell me where is the hyperbole"
I cannot tell you because I never mentioned any hyperbole, so please, don't put other people's arguments in my mouth. I'm not Inman. I stand on what I said about it: You cannot expect a cartoon site to be a source of academic discussion.
"The honey bee (…) analyses colour in the same way as humans:"
Without doubting of the trichromatic vision you mentioned, I'm really doubtful that behavioral tests with a black box approach could enable any biologist to say that full trichromatic vision is produced by the same "analysis" in so evolutionary separated species, without understanding the neural structure of the respective brains.Â
Thanks for the links.Â
Shortly after this article was written she ran out and purchased a 4K TV.