Postscript: Identity and Constraints in Models of Object Formation

Presents some additional comments from the current authors regarding their original article Interpolation processes in object perception: Reply to Anderson (2007). As this exchange concludes, we believe that the account of interpolation and object formation proposed by Kellman and Shipley (1991), fu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psychological review 2007-04, Vol.114 (2), p.502-508
Main Authors: Kellman, Philip J, Garrigan, Patrick, Shipley, Thomas F, Keane, Brian P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Concept Formation
Depth Perception
Form and Shape Perception
Human
Identification
Object Recognition
Perception
Program Improvement
Psychometrics
Reader Response
Shift Studies
Visual Perception
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Presents some additional comments from the current authors regarding their original article Interpolation processes in object perception: Reply to Anderson (2007). As this exchange concludes, we believe that the account of interpolation and object formation proposed by Kellman and Shipley (1991), further developed in recent years (Kellman, 2003; Kellman, Guttman, & Wickens, 2001), and most recently extended to 3-D interpolation (Kellman, Garrigan, & Shipley, 2005) and spatiotemporal object formation (Palmer, Kellman, & Shipley, 2006), remains viable. Here we briefly note some progress in this discussion, including positions taken by Anderson (2007a) that have since been abandoned. We address the new positions that Anderson (2007b) takes, which now focus on interpolations that switch between modal and amodal appearance, data on interpolated contour shape, evidence and methodological concerns about early interpolation, and physiological evidence.
ISSN:0033-295X
1939-1471
DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.502