Advanced Search

Browse by Discipline

Scientific Societies

E-print Alerts

Add E-prints

E-print Network

  Advanced Search  

Filling-In Models of Completion: Rejoinder to Kellman, Garrigan, Shipley, and Keane (2007) and Albert (2007)

Summary: Filling-In Models of Completion: Rejoinder to Kellman, Garrigan, Shipley,
and Keane (2007) and Albert (2007)
Barton L. Anderson
University of New South Wales
There has been a growing interest in understanding the computations involved in the processes
underlying visual segmentation and interpolation in conditions of occlusion. P. J. Kellman, P. Garrigan,
T. F. Shipley, and B. P. Keane (2007) and M. K. Albert (2007) defended the view that identical contour
interpolation mechanisms underlie modal and amodal completion. In the current rejoinder, the author
provides further psychophysical evidence against this view and argues that no physiological data support
the claim that modal and amodal contours are represented identically at any stage of processing. The
author also shows that the illusory glass surfaces that Kellman et al. and Albert upheld as evidence
against his arguments about luminance constraints in completion are explained by theoretical principles
that he has previously articulated (B. L. Anderson, 2003), and variants of these illusions receive no
explanation within either of the models Kellman et al. and Albert propose. The author shows that the
principles needed to explain these percepts embody fundamental asymmetries in the way that relative
depth shapes segmentation and interpolation processes and that models of completion that lack these
constraints--such as P. J. Kellman, P. Garrigan, and T. F. Shipley's (2005) and M. K. Albert's
(2007)--cannot account for a host of documented completion phenomena.
Keywords: completion, modal, amodal, contours
Since the inception of their first model, Kellman and colleagues


Source: Anderson, Barton L. - School of Psychology, University of Sydney


Collections: Biology and Medicine