Are mirror-symmetric objects of special importance for 3D shape perception? A reply to Sawada and Pizlo (2022)

Yu, Todd, and Petrov (2021) and Yu, Petrov, and Todd (2021) investigated failures of shape constancy that occur when objects are viewed stereoscopically at different distances. Although this result has been reported previously with simple objects such as pyramids or cylinders, we examined more complex objects with bilateral symmetry to test the claim by Li, Sawada, Shi, Kwon, and Pizlo (2011) that the perception of those objects is veridical. Sawada and Pizlo (2022) offer several criticisms of our experiments, but they seem to suggest that the concept of shape is defined by what is computable by their model. If stimuli are used that cannot be discriminated by their model, they are dismissed as degenerate, and tasks that cannot be performed by their model are assumed to be based on something other than shape. This allows them to disregard empirical evidence that is inconsistent with their model. We argue, in contrast, that all reliable aspects of shape perception are deserving of explanation. We also argue that there are many different attributes of shape and many different sources of information about shape that may be relevant in different contexts. It is unlikely that all of them can be explained by a single model.