The present study, an extension of Paramei [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A , 29, A290, 2012], provides normative data on chromatic discrimination, using the Cambridge Colour Test, for normal trichromats aged 10–88 years. Findings are in accord with a two-phase variation across the life span: chromatic sensitivity improves in adolescence, reaches a maximum around 30 years, and then undergoes a gradual decrease. Indicative parameters are Protan (P), Deutan (D), and Tritan (T) vector lengths and major axes and axis ratios of Ellipses. Trivector data are modeled as non-monotonic combinations of power functions, with goodness-of-fits ${\text{R}}_{\text{P}}^2=0.23$, ${\text{R}}_{\text{D}}^2=0.23$, and ${\text{R}}_{\text{T}}^2=0.45$. For advancing age, sensitivity decline in all chromatic systems was confirmed, though with a marked acceleration after 60 years (reflected by the power function exponent $>1$) and more pronounced for the tritan system.

Color discrimination was estimated using the Cambridge Colour Test (CCT) in 160 normal trichromats of four life decades, 20–59 years of age. For each age cohort, medians and tolerance limits of the CCT parameters are tabulated. Compared across the age cohorts (Kruskal–Wallis test), the Trivector test showed increases in the three vectors, Protan, Deutan, and Tritan, with advancing age; the Ellipses test revealed significant elongation of the major axes of all three ellipses but no changes in either the axis ratio or the angle of the ellipse major axis. Multiple comparisons (Mann–Whitney test) between the cohorts of four age decades ($20+,\dots ,50+$) revealed initial benign deterioration of color discrimination in the $40+$ decade, as an incremental loss of discrimination along the Deutan axis (Trivector test), and in the $50+$ decade, as an elongation of the major axes of all three ellipses (Ellipses test).

Russian color naming was explored in a web‐based experiment. The purpose was 3‐fold: to examine (1) CIELAB coordinates of centroids for 12 Russian basic color terms (BCTs), including 2 Russian terms for “blue”, sinij “dark blue”, and goluboj “light blue”, and compare these with coordinates for the 11 English BCTs obtained in earlier studies; (2) frequent nonBCTs; and (3) gender differences in color naming. Native Russian speakers participated in the experiment using an unconstrained color‐naming method. Each participant named 20 colors, selected from 600 colors densely sampling the Munsell Color Solid. Color names and response times of typing onset were registered. Several deviations between centroids of the Russian and English BCTs were found. The 2 “Russian blues”, as expected, divided the BLUE area along the lightness dimension; their centroids deviated from a centroid of English blue. Further minor departures were found between centroids of Russian and English counterparts of “brown” and “red”. The Russian color inventory confirmed the linguistic refinement of the PURPLE area, with high frequencies of nonBCTs. In addition, Russian speakers revealed elaborated naming strategies and use of a rich inventory of nonBCTs. Elicitation frequencies of the 12 BCTs were comparable for both genders; however, linguistic segmentation of color space, employing a synthetic observer, revealed gender differences in naming colors, with more refined naming of the “warm” colors from females. We conclude that, along with universal perceptual factors, that govern categorical partition of color space, Russian speakers’ color naming reflects language‐specific factors, supporting the weak relativity hypothesis.

Sinij and goluboj , the two Russian confounders for ‘blue’, are considered. The question addressed is whether solely sinij or both have status of basic color terms. Results along various lines of experimental research are analyzed. Developmental studies in preschoolers show that with regards to sinij , acquisition of goluboj is overdue, but comparable to that of ‘orange’ and ‘purple’. Psycholinguistic studies indicate that both Russian ‘blues’ are named with high consensus and have circumscribed, though adjoining areas when mapped into a color space. Psychometric studies relate data of Russian and English speakers on color categorization and discrimination within the blue region. Results are indecisive on whether Russian speakers possess a sinij-goluboj category boundary. However, choices of stimuli and/or experimental design were suboptimal. Further controlled psychometric investigation is required. Nevertheless, linguistic (developmental, metonymic, metaphoric) and psycholinguistic analyses provide converging evidence that both Russian ‘blues’ have status of the basic color terms.

This study evaluated reproducibility of the Trivector subtest of the Cambridge Colour Test. Data for normal trichromats were obtained in Brazil ( N = 111 ) at T0, six months (T1), and 12 months later (T2), and in the United Kingdom ( N = 79 ), with the test directly followed by a retest. Coefficients of repeatability—Bland–Altman indices—for Protan, Deutan, and Tritan vectors were similar for both datasets. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)—measures of reliability—were low or moderate for these relatively homogeneous datasets; for a heterogeneous dataset, comprising color-normal and abnormal observers, ICCs were 0.80–0.98, indicating the high discriminative accuracy of the Trivector subtest.

Gender differences in colour naming were explored using a web-based experiment in English. Each participant named twenty colours selected from 600 Munsell samples, presented one at a time against a neutral background. Colour names and typing onset response times were registered. For the eleven basic colour terms, elicitation frequency was comparable for both genders. Females demonstrated more elaborated colour vocabulary, with more descriptors in general and more non-basic monolexemic terms; they also named colours faster than males. The two genders differ in the repertoire of frequent colour terms: a Bayesian synthetic observer revealed that women segment colour space linguistically more densely in the “warm” area whereas men do so in the “cool” area. Current “nurture” and “nature” explanations of why females excel in colour naming behaviour are considered.