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)...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |