Talk:EnChroma

Educational Project Page

Application for course page currently pending on Wikipedia:Education noticeboard Limelightangel (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright

copyright must be taken in consideration. we must be careful and do not use copyrighted content.--05lauraliuc (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Images

we need to work on adding more images, need at least 2 or 3 --05lauraliuc (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I added a picture but I think we need at least another one! --Colussisi (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw it, I agree with you , it is a good image to have on the page.--05lauraliuc (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for pictures, but most of them are just replications of the one we have already put! I don't know what to search.--Bittabitti (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The image 1=> out of focus, image 2 focused... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalRemi (talk • contribs) 08:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

This page needs the inclusion of regular references. Limelightangel (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Usernames in Red

By completing the student online training and editting other pages, you evidence experience with the platform and your usernames will turn from red to blue. Limelightangel (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of Categories

This draft page needs putting in relevant Categories. Limelightangel (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Reference 2 needs correcting to comply with conventions - use the Cite Template for news sources, and include the author. Limelightangel (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Read like an advert

This is basically no good evidence... We have three pubmed indexed primary sources https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=EnChroma Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I made some significant changes to better capture the independent criticism of this product. I also removed the Advert banner. Rp2006 (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The photos are misleading

The photos of the "ordinary scene" (a courthouse) are not both in focus. The EnChroma lens photo is in much better focus than the other one. So like is not being compared to like, making the EnChroma photo look better. This is misleading. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it. Rp2006 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article has gotten a bit out of hand. Much of the unbiased information (EnChroma lenses are literally a type of color blind glasses plus all the information on the actual company has disappeared?) has just been replaced with cherry-picked skepticism, possibly as vindication from the MegaLag video. We don't need to include undue weight on the support for the lenses, but this has gotten ridiculously and messily biased on the skeptic side and thrown the style guide out the window. I've put a template on it until I get some time for this next month. Curran919 (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that there is no reliably sourced independant support for the lenses, but a plethora of reliable independantly sourced evidence against them. At this point, I feel that WP:FRINGE needs to be the governing wikipedia policy for the article, and that the article should state, in Wikipedia's voice, that the claims made by the company are not backed by the scientific consensus. The independant research section could use some cleaning up and prose tightening, but I would suggest that it needs to remain the bulk of the article-- the main problem I see right now is that the article is structured in terms of point/counter-point, of two sides laying out their claims and one side happens to be much longer than the other. Instead, while the article should state what the manufacturer's claims are for context, we need to say that those claims are incorrect, and then explain why those claims are incorrect. Because that's what reliable sources and scientific consensus tells us. Fieari (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing with @Fieari. LukeTriton (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple claims made by EnChroma. Some of them are true and some false. For example, while the glasses cannot increase the gamut of the eye (and cannot grant normal or near-normal vision, or even "correct" color blindness), they can increase the gamut visible in a given scene, by selectively increasing the saturation of some colors. This latter claim applies to the colorblind (anomalous trichromats) as well as color normals (trichromats), but is a legitimate net positive of the lenses that should not be ignored. Thirdly, the lenses can also selectively change relative brightness of colors in a scene, which may increase or decrease contrast, but in the case of images with tuned-contrast (e.g. ishihara plates), they increase contrast, making the plates clearly visible to the colorblind (just like many color-tinted foils do). While I am not an EnChroma proponent and I do not like the recent IP-edit injecting biased pro-info, I think labeling this as wp:fringe is overkill. There are independent studies that support EnChroma, this is probably the best recent example: [1], as the independence of earlier pro-articles has been questioned (simply according to their open disclosures). Jeff Rabin is pretty well-known and IMO credible in the colorblind world. We could break it into sections for each of the claims, which would better organize the information and avoid point-counterpoint. Would that fit MOS? Curran919 (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

are you an enchroma salesman or something 81.100.136.25 (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I too agree with @Fieari that there needs to be stricter governance of this article. The problem with this page is that it largely focuses on what EnChroma’s glasses “can do” while failing to address the false narratives and pseudoscientific concepts that EnChroma built their brand upon. I feel it’s not my place to make edits myself, so I will just leave my thoughts here and leave some suggested edits in this Google Doc.

The central misconception EnChroma has fostered among users is that their glasses allow CVD observers to perceive new colors for the first time. This has been the driving narrative from EnChroma since day one. It’s evident in their advertising, social media, news segments, podcasts, etc. Of the ten peer-reviewed papers I’ve reviewed, not one supports this claim, and it’s a concept that defies established scientific principles. This should be the first thing addressed in this article and top of mind throughout.

To state that there are independent studies supporting EnChroma is somewhat disingenuous because these papers do not support the core value proposition EnChroma used to sell their glasses. Customers were not sold on the fact that the glasses “increase chromatic contrast along the red-green axis”; they were sold on the hope of experiencing new colors. I’m not suggesting the real benefits shouldn’t be highlighted—they should be—but carefully.

For example, the “Working Principle” section of this article is accurate in that it explains how the technology actually works, but it fails to address the pseudoscientific explanation EnChroma has pushed to consumers. For years, the company has claimed that the narrow band absorption in their lens separates the spectral sensitivity of the red and green cones, restoring some form of normalcy in the eye. There’s evidence of this on their website, in news articles, podcasts, and interviews with their Chief Science Officer, Don McPherson. This must be addressed.

I like the idea of creating a section that addresses each of their claims, with a separate section detailing the actual value of the glasses. Alternatively, you could do something like a functional value vs. promise benefit section? Either way, this article should fairly criticise what has been a ongoing attempt to intentionally mislead the CVD community for financial gain. Here's an advert they're running on Google that has been shown to 1.5 people insinuating that the glasses cure monochromacy. Here's another. Examples like these should be included in this article as testament to the company's ethics. Megalag96 (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Megalag96 This isn't so much a question of whether criticisms of the advertising claims are WP:DUE, but is more a question of whether they are WP:original research, which is one of the strongest tenets of wikipedia. I have also had others use my youtube videos as sources (e.g. ColorADD, also see my last thread on that talk page of that article), but while a youtube video may be enough to show that criticism exists, in general, it is not enough to underlie a scientific refutation. Something that may be acceptable, referencing your videos, may be: "despite Enchroma's award-winning online advertising, their ads have been criticized for misleading potential buyers in the efficacy of the lenses." Anything more than that would probably require a more reliable source (WP:SCIRS).

Unfortunately, I feel like every anti-Enchroma publication doesn't exactly hit the nail on the head with enumerating exactly what the glasses can do and what they can't. Most focus on a single research question, which focuses on refuting a specific claim instead of explaining what they CAN theoretically and/or practically do. Now that the Enchroma lit is hitting more than a dozen papers, maybe a literature review is in order, but I also think the research in the pro-enchroma and anti-enchroma camps is fairly weak either way. Curran919 (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Curran919 I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I'm calling for my series to be referenced in this article. That was not my point. But since you brought it up, I do find it weird that there's no criticism topic on this page. Many esteemed vision scientists like Jay Neitz have been criticising EnChroma for years [1][2] and since the publication of my series, other prominent YouTubers like Steve Mould and How to Cook That have also discussed the issue. My channel/series may not meet wiki's reliable source standards, but it does feature direct statements from a vision scientist with a vested interest in the EnChroma (and insider knowledge) who openly condemned their advertising practices and agreed they mischaracterised the findings of his study (which EnChroma have since corrected). I’d argue that’s a fairly credible and relevant source of criticism given his expertise and well documented relationship with the company. I’m no expert on writing wiki’s articles, but I'd say there's more than enough out there to warrant a criticism section for this article.

But again, this was not the point of my initial comment. For readers unfamiliar with EnChroma, how can they fairly assess the literature section of this article without context of how EnChroma positioned their product? They can’t. By omitting the broader context of what EnChroma sold to consumers and the subsequent scientific consensus refuting those promises, this article fails to maintain neutrality. A company defines the design and intention of their product. It is not the role of a wiki article to redefine this based on what scientific silver linings are found on said product or what the company has written in their fine print.

Did you see my Google doc? Megalag96 (talk) 08:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Megalag96 My comment was mostly based on the claims about false advertising, which is a claim that I don't think has any better reference than your videos, and as such probably doesn't belong in the article yet. If your campaign with the FDA goes somewhere, then this would be worthy of inclusion. How the discussion on effectiveness is reflected in this article is more nuanced and definitely up for discussion. With regards to the working method, the article should generally describe the tech as it actually is, i.e. as described by third party literature, not as described in marketing materials, as these may (and in this case, do) differ. The difference to EnChroma's claims, however, does not need to be highlighted.

Criticism sections are generally against the manual of style and avoided. I like them, but I seem to be in the minority. Criticisms should instead be baked into sections to which they are relevant. In this case, the ideal header describing the effectiveness of the lenses may just be ##Effects##, which would include the effectiveness debate. Parts of your interview with Knoblauch may warrant inclusion, but I haven't watched it recently. Did he not reneg on some of his comments later?

I spent some minutes going through your google doc, but it looks unchanged? Hard to make the straight text-text comparison, though. The wp:bebold tenet encourages anyone to make controversial changes to an article, as they can be easily reverted. The record of said change can then be perused and discussed more easily since you are highlighting the changes. You can even make the edit and self-revert, which is pretty common, then discuss the reverted changes. Curran919 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Perceive "New" Colors Claim

@Towstaupe As of now, I have not been able to find any literature to support the claim that EnChroma's glasses allow for the perception of new colors. If you've found something we haven't, feel free to share it here so we can assess and discuss. Megalag96 (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the studies in the article.

"Spontaneous comments followed the changes in objective testing. On day 2, this participant said, “I wear the glasses very often… I am certain that I am seeing differences in everything that has red in it (flowers, leaves, cars).” On day 4, he reported that “Autumn foliage colors are what is most noticeably changed.” On day 11, his relative chromatic response was lower than on day 4. Nevertheless, his relative chromatic response was still 72% above baseline."

"Six of the 7 anomalous observers who wore the test glasses made spontaneous comments indicating enhancement of the appearance of color""

"The results show an increase in the maximum response to chromatic contrast in anomalous trichromats following long-term usage of spectrally selective filters that effectively reduce the overlap in stimulation of their two long-wave cone sensitivities. This is a neural effect that may lend itself to adaptation in visual therapies, not just for color vision, but perhaps for other visual modalities as well. Given that MLDS yields a measure of the strength of appearance, the results suggest that the observers’ experience of color intensity or saturation will have increased."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982220307417 Towstaupe (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The paper you cited was co-authored by a shareholder of EnChroma, which raises concerns about its objectivity. However, the paper does not claim or suggest that individuals with anomalous trichromacy can perceive “new colors” they have never seen before. While individuals with trichromatic vision can experience a boost in the “appearance of color” when using light-filtering glasses, this enhancement does not mean they are seeing new colors. Similarly, an increase in chromatic contrast does not indicate the perception of “new colors”; rather, it means that existing colors appear more saturated within the observer’s color gamut, as noted in the paper.

This paper states the following: "It is important to note that our positive results do not imply that EnChroma filters have the potential to create “new color experiences” that are unachievable without the filters. Since filters cannot alter the spectral composition of monochromatic light, the spectrum locus of monochromatic lights which ultimately bounds the anomalous trichromatic color gamut cannot be altered by EnChroma filters or by any other spectrally-selective filter."

The concept that light filtering lenses can enable new colors experiences defies well established scientific principals. This paper does well in highlighting the limitations of passive aids. Also see principal of univariance Megalag96 (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Read it closely. "increase in the maximum response to chromatic contrast." This does not just report an increase in the response to chromatic contrast, but an increase in the maximum response, which very clearly is claiming new color perception.

This study is cited in the Wikipedia article.

If you don't trust this study, here is another study that claims people with anomalous trichromacy can see new colors with EnChroma lenses.

"The majority of patients reported subjective increase in color perception."

"In response to the survey questionnaire: 9 patients agreed and 2 strongly agreed that

EnChroma glasses improved their color vision; 4 responses were neutral, and 1 patient disagreed

on improvement of color using EnChroma glasses."

"Nevertheless, many of our patients reported a strong subjective improvement in color-vision

sensitivity."

https://www.jaapos.org/article/S1091-8531(20)30100-2/abstract#back-bib11

This can very easily be interpreted as claiming new color perception.

The Wikipedia article should remain neutral and not show bias towards a particular study. Towstaupe (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

You have an entire series on your YouTube channel claiming that EnChroma is a scam. Your agenda and bias are obvious. Towstaupe (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

An “increase in the maximum response to chromatic contrast” reflects an enhanced signal detection capacity within the visual system’s existing chromatic boundaries—it does not imply the perception of new colors.

Wikipedia is grounded in the principle of reflecting scientific consensus and relies on studies free from conflicts of interest. I personally trust the findings of Dr Knoblauch's paper, but the his bias cannot be ignored in this context. As for the other study you've shared, forgive me for not trusting a "retrospective review". Not exactly bullet proof methodology.

My series reflects the information given to me by 3 experts, one of which worked for EnChroma. Unfortunately, I don't make money arguing with people on wikipedia. But if you're genuinely interested in the truth, you're welcome to reach out to me. We can have a call and I'll share my full interview with Dr Knoblauch. Or perhaps I should just publish it and link it to this wiki.. It does seem relevant now.. hmmmm Megalag96 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The word maximum here would undeniably imply the claim of the perception of new colors.

I'm not ignoring this study's bias and I shared another study that does not appear to have any bias. Ignoring this study and others like it in favor of studies that fit your narrative is biased. This is why neither the claim that EnChroma's lenses allow people with anomalous trichromacy to see new colors or that they don't allow them to see new colors should be stated as a fact. It's not a scientific consensus when there are several conflicting studies.

You can share the full interview if you want, but it won't invalidate the studies that don't agree with you.

I am aware that there are scientists that do not agree with this claim, however there are others that do. The point is that neither side should be favored over the other. Towstaupe (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The current biology paper has to be ignored on the basis of its conflict. That leaves you with a paper that can only offer anecdotal accounts of "subjective increase in color perception". Not only is that very unscientific, but it's also very unspecific. is the improvement from an improvement in color appearance? discrimination? The introduction of luminance cues could also be perceived as an "enhancement to color perception". Lets also not ignore limitations of this study - lack of masking, no randomisation, retrospective etc... Do you really think that is enough to challenge the current scientific consensus? Megalag96 (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not unscientific or unspecific at all. Subjective accounts are the only way to measure if someone can perceive new colors, unless there were somehow a way to record someone's vision. "improvement in color-vision sensitivity" is not unspecific, you know exactly what this means. Increase in the ability to differentiate between colors without being able to see new colors is not improved color vision sensitivity, being able to see new colors is improved color vision sensitivity. For example, someone wouldn't claim to have improved color vision sensitivity because of the use of a color blind filter on their screen. You were even trying to argue that "increase in the maximum response to chromatic contrast" doesn't imply the perception of new colors.

Again, it isn't the current scientific consensus when several studies are conflicting.

Here is another study which supports the Current Biology study.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-021-01924-0

It's so obvious that you're just trying to push your agenda. Towstaupe (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)