Holography does not account for goodness : a critique of van der Helm and Leeuwenberg (1996)
Olivers, Christian N. L., Chater, Nick and Watson, Derrick G. (2004) Holography does not account for goodness : a critique of van der Helm and Leeuwenberg (1996). Psychological Review, Vol.111 (No.1). pp. 242-260. ISSN 0033-295XFull text not available from this repository.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.242
P. A. van der Helm and E. L. J. Leeuwenberg (1996) outlined a holographic account of figural goodness of a perceptual stimulus. The theory is mathematically precise and can be applied to a broad spectrum of empirical data. The authors argue, however, that the account is inadequate on both theoretical and empirical grounds. The theoretical difficulties concern the internal consistency of the account and its reliance on unspecified auxiliary assumptions. The account also makes counterintuitive empirical predictions, which do not fit past data or the results of a series of new experimental studies.
|Item Type:||Journal Item|
|Subjects:||B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Q Science > QP Physiology
|Divisions:||Faculty of Science > Psychology|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Visual perception, Form perception, Pattern perception, Visual fields, Mathematical models|
|Journal or Publication Title:||Psychological Review|
|Publisher:||American Psychological Society|
|Number of Pages:||19|
|Page Range:||pp. 242-260|
|Funder:||Medical Research Council (Great Britain) (MRC), European Commission (EC)|
|Grant number:||RTNHPRN- CT-1999-00065 (EC)|
Actions (login required)