Holographic Goodness Is Not That Bad: Reply to Olivers, Chater, and Watson (2004)

Psychological Review

Volumn 111, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 261-273

  Van der Helm, Peter A ^a   Leeuwenberg, Emanuel L J ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0742288839     PISSN: 0033295X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.261     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Barlow, H. B., & Reeves, B. C. (1979). The versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays, Vision Research, 19, 783-793.
2. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1994). Parallel computation of symmetry but not repetition within single visual shapes. Visual Cognition, 1, 377-400.
3. Corballis, M. C., & Roldan, C. E. (1974). On the perception of symmetrical and repeated patterns. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 136-142.
4. Csathó, A., van der Vloed, G., & van der Helm, P. A. (2003). Blobs strengthen repetition but weaken symmetry. Vision Research, 43, 993-1007.
5. Dakin, S. C., & Herbert, A. M. (1998). The spatial region of integration for visual symmetry detection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 659-664.
6. Dakin, S. C., & Watt, R. J. (1994). Detection of bilateral symmetry using spatial filters. Spatial Vision, 8, 393-413.
7. Freyd, J., & Tversky, B. (1984). Force of symmetry in form perception. American Journal of Psychology, 97, 109-126.
8. Glass, L. (1969). Moiré effect from random dots. Nature, 223, 578-580.
9. Hughes, H. C., Nozawa, G., & Kitterle, F. (1996). Global precedence, spatial frequency channels, and the statistics of natural images. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 197-230.
10. Hulleman, J., & Boselie, F. (1999). Perceived shape regularity does not depend on regularities along the contour, Perception, 28, 711-724.
11. Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (1969). Quantitative specification of information in sequential patterns. Psychological Review, 76, 216-220.
12. Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (1971). A perceptual coding language for visual and auditory patterns, American Journal of Psychology, 84, 307-349.
13. MacKay, D. (1969). Information, mechanism and meaning. Boston: MIT Press.
14. Maloney, R. K., Mitchison, G. J., & Barlow, H. B. (1987). Limit to the detection of Glass patterns in the presence of noise. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 4, 2336-2341.
15. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.
16. Olivers, C. L. N., Chater, N., & Watson, D. G. (2004). Holography does not account for goodness: A critique of van der Helm and Leeuwenberg (1996). Psychological Review, 111, 242-260.
17. Olivers, C. L. N., & van der Helm, P. A. (1998). Symmetry and selective attention: A dissociation between effortless perception and serial search. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1101-1116.
18. Domes, S. (1998). Human visual perception of spatial structure. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
19. Palmer, S. E. (1983). The psychology of perceptual organization: A transformational approach. In J. Beck, B. Hope, & A. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Human and machine vision (pp. 269-339), New York: Academic Press.
20. Palmer, S. E. (1999). Vision science: Photons to phenomenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Pothos, E. M., & Ward, R. (2000). Symmetry, repetition, and figural goodness: An investigation of the weight of evidence theory. Cognition, 75, B65-B78.
22. Tapiovaara, M. (1990). Ideal observer and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random images. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 7, 2245-2253.
23. Tyler, C. W., & Baseler, H. A. (1998). fMRI signals from a cortical region specific for multiple pattern symmetries, Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 39(Suppl.), 169.
24. Tyler, C. W., & Chang, J.-J. (1977). Visual echoes: The perception of repetition in quasi-random patterns. Vision Research, 17, 109-116.
25. Tyler, C. W., & Hardage, L. (1996). Mirror symmetry detection: Predominance of second-order pattern processing throughout the visual field. In C. W. Tyler (Ed.), Human symmetry perception and its computational analysis (pp. 157-172). Zeist, The Netherlands: VSP.
26. van der Helm, P. A. (1988). Accessibility and simplicity of visual structures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
27. van der Helm, P. A. (2000). Simplicity versus likelihood in visual perception: From surprisals to precisals. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 770-800.
28. van der Helm, P. A., & Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (1991). Accessibility, a criterion for regularity and hierarchy in visual pattern codes. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 35, 151-213.
29. van der Helm, P. A., & Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (1996). Goodness of visual regularities: A nontransformational approach. Psychological Review, 103, 429-456.
30. van der Helm, P. A., & Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (1999). A better approach to goodness: Reply to Wagemans (1999). Psychological Review, 106, 622-630.
31. van der Helm, P. A., van Lier, R. J., & Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (1992). Serial pattern complexity; Irregularity and hierarchy. Perception, 21, 517-544.
32. van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., & Leeuwenberg, E. L. J. (1980). Perceptual interpretation of complex line patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 197-221.
33. Wagemans, J. (1999). Toward a better approach to goodness: Comments on van der Helm and Leeuwenberg (1996). Psychological Review, 106, 610-621.
34. Wagemans, J., Van Gool, L., Swinnen, V., & Van Horebeek, J. (1993). Higher-order structure in regularity detection. Vision Research, 33, 1067-1088.
35. Weyl, H. (1952). Symmetry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.