In a twist that sounds straight out of science fiction, researchers have begun to map not just how our eyes send color signals to the brain, but how our brains might experience color in similar ways. Using functional MRI, a team led by a visual neuroscientist in Europe studied how color is represented across individual brains and found that, on average, the brain responses to red, green, and yellow are surprisingly alike across people with normal color vision. The finding suggests there may be more common ground in our subjective experiences of color than previously thought, even as every observer still feels colors in a uniquely colored way. For Thai readers, the implication is more than a curiosity about perception; it could influence how classrooms are designed, how public health messages are colored for clarity, and how brands and media communicate with diverse audiences in a country where color carries cultural resonance and practical meaning in daily life.
The study asked a foundational question that has echoed through decades of science: when I say “red,” do you see the same thing I do? The short answer remains nuanced. People can describe color with similar language, yet the internal color experience can be idiosyncratic. The new work does not claim a perfect, universal color language, but it uses cutting-edge brain imaging to show a pattern: when a person looks at a red, green, or yellow target, a set of brain regions lights up in a way that, on average, aligns across several dozen participants. Then, by training on a subset of data, the researchers could anticipate with reasonable accuracy what color another participant was viewing, simply from brain activity, even when the external stimuli were the same. It’s a step toward translating the private sensation of color into measurable brain signals, a bridge between subjective experience and objective data.
Background matters because color is not just a visual feature; it conveys information, evokes emotion, and guides behavior. In education, colors organize materials, flag important concepts, and help memory through associations. In health communication, color choice can influence how quickly a public message is understood, how seriously it is taken, and whether it reaches people with diverse sensory experiences. The new research builds on a tradition of cross-species inquiry into color perception, including parallel findings in nonhuman primates. If the basic architecture of color processing is conserved across humans and monkeys, it strengthens the argument that our brains share a common framework for translating light into perceptual experiences. For a country like Thailand, where color-coded signaling is deeply embedded in daily life—from school materials to public signage and Buddhist festival symbolism—the possibility of a broadly shared color core crosses both scientific curiosity and practical necessity.
In the core experiment, 15 volunteers with normal color vision sat inside an MRI scanner while they observed expanding rings that glowed in red, green, or yellow. This design allowed researchers to map how color-induced activity unfolds across the visual cortex and other linked areas. To build a cross-subject reference, they drew on data from 45 additional subjects to establish an average pattern of brain responses to each color category. Then they used that average map to interpret the brain activity of the 15th participant when they were shown one of the color rings again. The result was striking: the average brain response could reliably predict the color and its brightness for that individual. In other words, the team could infer what color a person was looking at by reading the brain’s signals, to a meaningful degree of accuracy, beyond what would be possible by looking at the eyes alone.
The researchers themselves are careful to temper their conclusions. They emphasize that the science of subjective experience remains intimate and personal. Even with robust cross-subject patterns, individual nuance persists. One of the lead investigators put it plainly: while science fiction once imagined directly projecting another person’s experience into someone’s mind, the reality is more modest and methodical. The current approach shows a convergence around a shared color-processing architecture rather than a perfect mirror of private sensation. Yet the scientists are hopeful that their method will illuminate how colors are represented in the brain and how similar or different experiences might be across people and across contexts.
Independent experts offered measured praise. A noted color neuroscience researcher who was not involved in the study called the work “super cool” and highlighted its implication that color experience can be quite similar across people, at least among those with typical color vision. The same expert pointed to concurrent evidence from macaque studies, suggesting a broader biological consistency in color perception that transcends species. Still, the caveats were clear: color vision is diverse, and whether these brain-signal patterns hold for people with color vision deficiencies or for those with atypical color processing remains to be tested. The study does not claim universal consensus on subjective experience; rather, it marks a meaningful advance in linking brain activity to color perception in a replicable way.
The Dress phenomenon—forever etched into popular imagination as a reminder of how differently brains can interpret identical stimuli—was invoked in discussions of the new findings. Some people saw blue and black, while others perceived gold and white, despite receiving the same image. The current research does not erase that mystery, but it adds a different layer: even if a single image can be interpreted in multiple ways, there appears to be a shared neural scaffolding that can be observed and measured across observers. For Thai readers, that nuance translates into practical considerations about how we teach, communicate, and design information in ways that acknowledge both common perception and individual variation.
In Thailand’s education system, teachers increasingly use color-coded materials to support learning, from math worksheets to science diagrams. If color experiences are more aligned across learners than previously believed, educators might leverage that consistency to craft more universally accessible visual aids. Yet it also matters that color signals remain inclusive. Color-blindness and other variations in color perception exist, and signage in public spaces should remain legible for all. The Bangkok metropolitan region, with its dense flood of information in schools, transport hubs, and health facilities, could benefit from guidelines that ensure color-based materials work for the widest audience possible. The new research invites policymakers and educators to consider not just what color means in Thai culture but how color functions in practice as a communicative tool in real-world settings.
Culturally, color carries symbolism in Thailand that interacts with perception. In Thai daily life, colors are linked to days of the week, festivals, and even political and social cues. While the study focuses on perceptual neuroscience, its implications ripple into how people experience color in culturally charged contexts, from temple banners and parade costumes to classroom posters and digital learning platforms. For families in Thai communities, color provides quick, intuitive guidance—red for energy and urgency in some settings, yellow for auspiciousness and warmth in others, blue for calm and trust in public health campaigns. Recognizing that many Thai people share a broadly similar perceptual framework could help designers craft messages and materials that are both culturally resonant and scientifically accessible.
Looking ahead, researchers acknowledge the need for broader testing. The present work is a meaningful stride, but it rests on a relatively small, carefully selected sample. Expanding the study to include more diverse color vision profiles, different lighting environments, and a wider array of color categories will help determine how generalizable the findings are. Cross-cultural studies could reveal whether cultural exposure to color symbolism shapes perceptual interpretation in subtle ways, or if the brain’s color code remains remarkably universal. For Thailand, this means building local collaborations between neuroscience labs, educational authorities, and public health agencies to translate these insights into practice without oversimplifying the rich tapestry of Thai perception.
From a policy and practice standpoint, the implications are actionable. In health communication, color remains a powerful shorthand that can improve message retention and behavior change, provided it is accessible to all. Public health campaigns in Thai communities—whether addressing vaccination, nutrition, or preventive care—may benefit from evidence-based color strategies that consider both shared perception and individual differences. In education, publishers and school administrators might pilot color-augmented curricula that align with what a broad swath of learners can intuit, while offering alternative cues for those who experience colors differently. The ethical backbone of this work also calls for transparent communication about what is known and what remains uncertain, so that teachers, clinicians, and parents can trust the science without overgeneralizing.
For Thai families, the study’s core takeaway is both reassuring and instructive. The brain’s color code appears to be more common than we might have expected, aligning a great deal of our sensory experience across people with normal color vision. Yet personal variation still matters—no technical chart or public poster can guarantee that every eye reads color in the same exact way. The best response, then, is a balanced one: embrace the clarity that comes from shared neural patterns while maintaining inclusive practices that accommodate differences in perception. In a country that prizes harmony and community well-being, this combination of commonality and nuance offers a thoughtful path forward for how we learn, communicate, and design our everyday environments.
As science advances, the bridge between private sensation and public understanding grows longer—and more navigable. The ability to predict what someone is seeing based on brain activity underscores a future where diagnostic tools, educational technologies, and public communications can be tuned with unprecedented nuance. For Thailand’s health and education ecosystems, that future should be guided by rigorous validation, inclusive design, and a deep commitment to ensuring that every learner, patient, and citizen can access information in a form that is both accurate and approachable. The color of our science, it seems, is not just in the eye of the beholder but in the patterns of the brain that unite us across borders, cultures, and languages.
In the end, what this research does is offer a clearer map of the color-vision landscape and a more grounded sense of how consistent human experience can be. It invites Thai educators and health communicators to think strategically about color as a tool for understanding and engagement, while remaining mindful of scientific limits and individual differences. The takeaway for communities on the ground is straightforward: use color thoughtfully, test what works in local classrooms and clinics, and keep imperfect but honest conversations about perception at the heart of policy and practice. The colors we share in the brain may be more alike than we once believed, but it is our responsibility to translate that knowledge into inclusive, culturally aware actions that benefit all Thai people.