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. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.242

Full text not available from this repository, contact author.

Request Changes to record.

Abstract

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
ISSN:	0033-295X
Official Date:	January 2004
Dates:	Date Event January 2004 Published
Volume:	Vol.111
Number:	No.1
Number of Pages:	19
Page Range:	pp. 242-260
DOI:	10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.242
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Funder:	Medical Research Council (Great Britain) (MRC), European Commission (EC)
Grant number:	RTNHPRN- CT-1999-00065 (EC)

Request changes or add full text files to a record

Repository staff actions (login required)

View Item