Articlei-Perception
From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is Inadequate.
Article in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low confidence for perceptual completion of partially occluded objects.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Confidence in auditory perceptual completion.Neuroscience of consciousness · 2025Article
- What, if anything, can be considered an amodal sensory dimension?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Review
- Underestimation of the number of hidden objects.Journal of vision · 2023Article
- The illusion of absence: how a common feature of magic shows can explain a class of road accidents.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
- From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is Inadequate.i-PerceptionArticle
- Amodal Completion Revisited.i-PerceptionArticle
- Article
- The Illusion of Absence in Magic Tricks.i-PerceptionArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The distinction between modal and amodal completion is ubiquitous in the perception literature. It goes back to the seminal publication "Les compléments amodaux des structures perceptives" by A. Michotte, G. Thinès, and G. Crabbé (Publications Universitaires de Louvain: Louvain) in 1964. We review and discuss this work in this article and show commonalities and differences to today's view. We then argue that the dichotomous distinction between modal and amodal completions is problematic in phenomenological, empirical, logical, and theoretical terms. Finally, we propose alternative criteria allowing for a more differentiated classification scheme for completion phenomena. This scheme seems to be consistent with all known empirical findings and can also be generalized to nonvisual domains of perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.