ArticleJournal of vision2022
Are mirror-symmetric objects of special importance for 3D shape perception? A reply to Sawada and Pizlo (2022).
Article in Journal of vision, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Yu, Todd, and Petrov (2021) and Yu, Petrov, and Todd (2021) investigated failures of shape constancy that occur when objects are viewed stereoscopically at different distances. Although this result has been reported previously with simple objects such as pyramids or cylinders, we examined more complex objects with bilateral symmetry to test the claim by Li, Sawada, Shi, Kwon, and Pizlo (2011) that the perception of those objects is veridical. Sawada and Pizlo (2022) offer several criticisms of our experiments, but they seem to suggest that the concept of shape is defined by what is computable by their model. If stimuli are used that cannot be discriminated by their model, they are dismissed as degenerate, and tasks that cannot be performed by their model are assumed to be based on something other than shape. This allows them to disregard empirical evidence that is inconsistent with their model. We argue, in contrast, that all reliable aspects of shape perception are deserving of explanation. We also argue that there are many different attributes of shape and many different sources of information about shape that may be relevant in different contexts. It is unlikely that all of them can be explained by a single model.
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.