This theory is wrong, because there is no magenta light on the real light spectrum. The colour spectrum is perceived as a wheel/circle in our minds, but it is a straight line in physical reality. Thus, these opposites are imaginary and not real.
Explain what you mean? The color cyan exists on the physical spectrum, but the color magenta does not. Meaning, if colours are perceived inversely, then how would the color magenta physically enter the eye to be inverted to cyan?
Or if colours are perceived opposite as in that theory, then why not double inverted or ten times inverted between the eye and the brain?
Cyan is perceived when both red-green and yellow-blue channels exhibit about the same negative response. It should be clear from the article linked above and the chart I gave you.
I've read the article, and the theory is incredibly dubious and most likely false:
"There is some overlap in the wavelengths of light to which the three types of cones (L for long-wave, M for medium-wave, and S for short-wave light) respond, so it is more efficient for the visual system (from a perspective of dynamic range) to record differences between the responses of cones, rather than each type of cone's individual response."
That's a ridiculous argument.
"That is, either red or green is perceived and never greenish-red: Even though yellow is a mixture of red and green in the RGB color theory, the eye does not perceive it as such."
Say what? Yellow is both a real physical wavelength, or a perception of red and green light mixed.
"In 1970, Solomon and Corbit expanded Hurvich and Jameson's general neurological opponent process model to explain emotion, drug addiction, and work motivation."
Bullshit detector bell ringing...
"A 2023 opinion essay of Conway, Malik-Moraleda, and Gibson claimed to "review the psychological and physiological evidence for Opponent-Colors Theory" and bluntly stated "the theory is wrong"."
"Color Appearance and the end of Hering’s Opponent-Colors Theory" basically confirms the opponent process as Utility-Based Coding starts from the exact same principle, and only disputes the way Opponent-Colors Theory attempts to explain some color perception phenomena. Understanding of opponent process dates far back before we discovered that this is actually what our brains are doing and there were some wacky attempts for justifying it involved before that indeed.
The part we're talking about is a biological fact - you just have to keep in mind that words "blue", "green", "red" and "yellow" in this context are actually referring to complex spectral responses of LMS space (where "red" includes parts of "blue" etc.).
> Understanding of opponent process dates far back before we discovered that this is actually what our brains are doing
It’s fascinating how ancient humans (that’ll be us one day) got so many things “basically right”. Futuristic instruments have a way of making old hypothesis look silly and “made up” (wink).
All that to say my original comment (way up there) was indeed referring to the basic biological outcome which was apparent before modern research attempted to explain it.
