Methods for determining equiluminance in terms of L/M cone ratios

Heterochromatic flicker photometry (HFP), minimum motion (MM), and minimally distinct border (MDB) settings have often been used to determine equiluminance, a relative intensity setting for two chromaticities that, in theory, eliminates the responses of a luminance or achromatic psychophysical mechanism. These settings have been taken to reflect the relative contribution of the long (L) and medium (M) wavelength cones to luminance, which varies widely across individuals. The present study compares HFP, MM, and MDB using stimuli that do not modulate the short (S) wavelength cones, in both practiced and naïve observers. MDB was performed with both flashed and steadily viewed stimuli. Results are represented in the (∆L/L, ∆M/M) plane of cone contrast space. Considering both practiced and naïve observers, both MM and HFP had excellent within-subject precision and high test–retest reliability, whereas HFP also had low between-subject variability. The MDB tasks were less reliable and less precise. The mean L:M contrast ratios at equiluminance were lower for the two temporal tasks (HFP and MM) compared to the spatial tasks (MDB), perhaps consistent with the existence of multiple luminance mechanisms. Overall, the results suggest that the best method for determining equiluminance is HFP, with MM being a close second.