Cargando…

Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019)

Pinna and Conti (Brain Sci., 2019, 9, 149, doi:10.3390/brainsci9060149) presented phenomena concerning the salience and role of contrast polarity in human visual perception, particularly in amodal completion. These phenomena are indeed illustrative thereof, but here, the focus is on their claims (1)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: van der Helm, Peter A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7017216/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31963341
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010050
_version_ 1783497151972638720
author van der Helm, Peter A.
author_facet van der Helm, Peter A.
author_sort van der Helm, Peter A.
collection PubMed
description Pinna and Conti (Brain Sci., 2019, 9, 149, doi:10.3390/brainsci9060149) presented phenomena concerning the salience and role of contrast polarity in human visual perception, particularly in amodal completion. These phenomena are indeed illustrative thereof, but here, the focus is on their claims (1) that neither simplicity nor likelihood approaches can account for these phenomena; and (2) that simplicity and likelihood are equivalent. I argue that their first claim is based on incorrect assumptions, whereas their second claim is simply untrue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7017216
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70172162020-02-28 Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019) van der Helm, Peter A. Brain Sci Comment Pinna and Conti (Brain Sci., 2019, 9, 149, doi:10.3390/brainsci9060149) presented phenomena concerning the salience and role of contrast polarity in human visual perception, particularly in amodal completion. These phenomena are indeed illustrative thereof, but here, the focus is on their claims (1) that neither simplicity nor likelihood approaches can account for these phenomena; and (2) that simplicity and likelihood are equivalent. I argue that their first claim is based on incorrect assumptions, whereas their second claim is simply untrue. MDPI 2020-01-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7017216/ /pubmed/31963341 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010050 Text en © 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Comment
van der Helm, Peter A.
Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019)
title Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019)
title_full Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019)
title_fullStr Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019)
title_full_unstemmed Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019)
title_short Dubious Claims about Simplicity and Likelihood: Comment on Pinna and Conti (2019)
title_sort dubious claims about simplicity and likelihood: comment on pinna and conti (2019)
topic Comment
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7017216/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31963341
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10010050
work_keys_str_mv AT vanderhelmpetera dubiousclaimsaboutsimplicityandlikelihoodcommentonpinnaandconti2019