The Effect of OBA in Paper and IlluminationLevel on Perceptibility of Printed Colors
A research was conducted to study the perceptibility of color difference of color pairs, caused by OBA differences in paper substrates, and its relationship with quantitative measurement metrics. Based on the psychometric experiments conducted, the results show the utilization of the visual difference index (VDI), from 0 (no difference) to 3 (noticeable difference), to rate 27 color pairs with each pair prepared by the same colorants but different OBA amount in the substrates. The findings indicate that (a) printed colors are affected by the presence of OBA from no difference to noticeable difference, (b) ∆E00 has a stronger linear correlation with visual color difference than ∆E*ab does, (c) there is no significant association between illumination levels and visual color difference. This research introduces the metric, OBA, per ISO 15397 (2013), as the CIE-b* difference in color pairs under M1 and M2 conditions. It also defines ∆OBA as the OBA difference between any color pairs, including substrates. The results show that there is linear correlation (1) between visual difference and ∆E00 which describes the color difference, and (2) between visual difference and ∆OBA which describes the criticalness of M1 lighting to realize the color match.
M1 Simulation by Varying Printing and Proofing Substrates
ICC color management can match color, pixel by pixel, from the source color space to the destination color space. The degree of color match is limited by the repeatability of the device and color management constraints between the source and destination. This research outlines a method whereby printing and proofing can be simulated visually and quantitatively. Major findings indicate that (1) the simulation error at the device level is about 1 ∆E00 at the 95th percentile of the sample distribution; (2) the error at the color management workflow level, except special causes, is about 2 ∆E00 at the 95th percentile of the sample distribution; (3) gamut clipping, due to CIE-b* difference or CIE-L* difference, is a special cause that contributes to proof-to-print mismatch. Avoiding gamut clipping by choosing the proofing substrate close to the white points of the printing paper, but with more “head room,” is a key finding in this study. In addition, we need no fewer than two proofing stocks to choose from. This is because the OBA difference between a proof and a print is an indication of the criticalness of the M1 lighting, i.e., the match becomes more metameric when the OBA difference is high.
Stroking different body regions of dairy cows: effects on avoidance and approach behavior toward humans.
Understanding perception of dairy cows to common human contact such as stroking is important for improving the human-animal relationship, animal welfare, and production. We hypothesized that repeated stroking of body regions licked most during social grooming, especially the ventral neck, would reduce cows' avoidance of and increase their approach to humans. Sixty tethered dairy cows were randomly allocated to 4 treatment groups that received 5 min of daily human contact 5 d/wk during 3 consecutive weeks: 3 groups were stroked on different body regions. The first group was stroked on the ventral part of the neck (neck); the second group on the withers (both licked often in social grooming); the third group on the lateral side of the chest (chest, licked rarely); and the last group (control) was exposed to simple human presence. The reactions to the person who had provided the treatment were measured using 2 tests in the home tie-stall assessing avoidance from an approaching person who tried to touch the head (approaching person test) and avoidance/approach reactions to a stationary person (stationary person test). Approach behavior was recorded in a novel environment using a standard arena test. In the home tie-stall, cows stroked on the neck showed less avoidance (median avoidance score: 3.33) in the approaching person test compared with cows stroked on the chest and the controls (both: 4.00). That is, at least 75% of the animals stroked on the neck tolerated the touching of their heads (75th percentile <or= 3.75), whereas at least 50% of the cows in the other treatment groups did not accept it. The stationary person test did not reveal any differences between the treatment groups. In the arena test, the 3 stroked groups showed more approach behavior (median latencies to contact: from 145 to 240 s) compared with simple human presence (300 s), but stroking treatments did not differ from each other. Stroking, particularly the neck, reduced avoidance of and increased approach reactions to humans in both the home tie-stall and the arena. Increasing acceptance of being touched after being stroked on the neck suggests that this procedure should be adopted to improve routine handling of dairy cattle.