Color cues, developmental coupling, and the limits of the late-sighted model: A commentary on Vogelsang et al. (2024)
Abstract
Vogelsang et al. (2024) report in Science that congenitally blind individuals who gain sight late in life rely disproportionately on color cues for object recognition, unlike normally sighted controls. They propose that this pattern reflects the adaptive value of neonatal color immaturity: because typical infants experience a period of degraded chromatic input, they develop object representations grounded in luminance rather than color. The theoretical account, however, rests on an incomplete engagement with the developmental literature. Decades of research indicate that color and luminance sensitivity are developmentally coupled through shared photoreceptor immaturity: the same front-end bottleneck that degrades chromatic input in neonates simultaneously degrades luminance and spatial processing. If this coupling is real, there is no luminance-first window, because the bottleneck lifts for both dimensions together. The account's central premise is therefore undermined not by arguing independence, but by showing that color and luminance do not develop in the sequence the account requires. I further identify methodological concerns: a small and unusual sample, a fixed order confound in the primary behavioral task, a computational model implementing a binary switch rather than the gradual chromatic cascade of normal development, and a color sensitivity test using non-equiluminant stimuli, leaving open the possibility that luminance rather than chromatic contrast sensitivity drove performance. Together, these issues require qualification of the conclusions of Vogelsang et al. and reconciliation of the proposed account with classical findings in infant visual development. This broader question remains important, but the answer is unlikely to hinge on color alone.
Related
- Jacques Touret (1936-2024), Hermann Vogelsang et les inclusions fluides
- Developmental temperature induces consistent patterns of plasticity in lower, but not upper, critical thermal limits in threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus)
- Coupling a developmental promoter to CRISPR interference for Wnt pathway regulation in human pluripotent stem cells
- The contribution of cross-modal sensory input to reaching and grasping in blind and sighted short-tailed opossums
- Commentary: acupuncture-associated gastric mucosal repair and the EGF–EGFR-related signaling network: evidence, limitations, and prospects
BibTeX
@misc{peterzell2026color,
title = {{Color cues, developmental coupling, and the limits of the late-sighted model: A commentary on Vogelsang et al. (2024)}},
author = {David Henry Peterzell},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/uz3sq_v4},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/uz3sq_v4/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Color cues, developmental coupling, and the limits of the late-sighted model: A commentary on Vogelsang et al. (2024)
AU - David Henry Peterzell
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/07
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/uz3sq_v4
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/uz3sq_v4/
AB - Vogelsang et al. (2024) report in Science that congenitally blind individuals who gain sight late in life rely disproportionately on color cues for object recognition, unlike normally sighted controls. They propose that this pattern reflects the adaptive value of neonatal color immaturity: because typical infants experience a period of degraded chromatic input, they develop object representations grounded in luminance rather than color. The theoretical account, however, rests on an incomplete engagement with the developmental literature. Decades of research indicate that color and luminance sensitivity are developmentally coupled through shared photoreceptor immaturity: the same front-end bottleneck that degrades chromatic input in neonates simultaneously degrades luminance and spatial processing. If this coupling is real, there is no luminance-first window, because the bottleneck lifts for both dimensions together. The account's central premise is therefore undermined not by arguing independence, but by showing that color and luminance do not develop in the sequence the account requires. I further identify methodological concerns: a small and unusual sample, a fixed order confound in the primary behavioral task, a computational model implementing a binary switch rather than the gradual chromatic cascade of normal development, and a color sensitivity test using non-equiluminant stimuli, leaving open the possibility that luminance rather than chromatic contrast sensitivity drove performance. Together, these issues require qualification of the conclusions of Vogelsang et al. and reconciliation of the proposed account with classical findings in infant visual development. This broader question remains important, but the answer is unlikely to hinge on color alone.
ER -