Natural Decompositions of Perceived Transparency: Reply to Albert (2008)

Barton L. Anderson, Manish Singh, Judit O'Vari

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In M. Singh and B. L. Anderson (2002), the authors proposed a model based on ratios of Michelson contrasts to explain how human observers quantitatively scale the perceived opacity of transparent surfaces. In subsequent work (B. L. Anderson, M. Singh, & J. Meng, 2006), the authors found that this model failed to generalize to other contexts and replaced it with a new, more general model based on ratios of perceived contrasts. M. K. Albert's (2008) main experiment aimed to test the model the authors have previously rejected. The authors argue that M. K. Albert's experimental method was flawed and that his experiments did not test either the authors' original model or the authors' subsequent model that replaced it. M. K. Albert failed to provide any account of the data that the authors' model predicts, and he did not provide any theory to explain his own data. The authors conclude that the discrepancy between M. K. Albert's results and all models of transparency results from problems in the methods used in his experiments, not from the shortcomings of extant theory.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1144-1151
Number of pages8
JournalPsychological Review
Volume115
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2008

Fingerprint

Decomposition
Transparency
Experiment
Observer
Singh
Experimental Method
Opacity

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Psychology(all)

Keywords

  • lightness
  • perceptual organization
  • scission
  • transparency

Cite this

Anderson, Barton L. ; Singh, Manish ; O'Vari, Judit. / Natural Decompositions of Perceived Transparency : Reply to Albert (2008). In: Psychological Review. 2008 ; Vol. 115, No. 4. pp. 1144-1151.
@article{238e19622c534add9524d8dd12f110d5,
title = "Natural Decompositions of Perceived Transparency: Reply to Albert (2008)",
abstract = "In M. Singh and B. L. Anderson (2002), the authors proposed a model based on ratios of Michelson contrasts to explain how human observers quantitatively scale the perceived opacity of transparent surfaces. In subsequent work (B. L. Anderson, M. Singh, & J. Meng, 2006), the authors found that this model failed to generalize to other contexts and replaced it with a new, more general model based on ratios of perceived contrasts. M. K. Albert's (2008) main experiment aimed to test the model the authors have previously rejected. The authors argue that M. K. Albert's experimental method was flawed and that his experiments did not test either the authors' original model or the authors' subsequent model that replaced it. M. K. Albert failed to provide any account of the data that the authors' model predicts, and he did not provide any theory to explain his own data. The authors conclude that the discrepancy between M. K. Albert's results and all models of transparency results from problems in the methods used in his experiments, not from the shortcomings of extant theory.",
keywords = "lightness, perceptual organization, scission, transparency",
author = "Anderson, {Barton L.} and Manish Singh and Judit O'Vari",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/a0013666",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "115",
pages = "1144--1151",
journal = "Psychological Review",
issn = "0033-295X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "4",

}

Natural Decompositions of Perceived Transparency : Reply to Albert (2008). / Anderson, Barton L.; Singh, Manish; O'Vari, Judit.

In: Psychological Review, Vol. 115, No. 4, 01.10.2008, p. 1144-1151.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Natural Decompositions of Perceived Transparency

T2 - Reply to Albert (2008)

AU - Anderson, Barton L.

AU - Singh, Manish

AU - O'Vari, Judit

PY - 2008/10/1

Y1 - 2008/10/1

N2 - In M. Singh and B. L. Anderson (2002), the authors proposed a model based on ratios of Michelson contrasts to explain how human observers quantitatively scale the perceived opacity of transparent surfaces. In subsequent work (B. L. Anderson, M. Singh, & J. Meng, 2006), the authors found that this model failed to generalize to other contexts and replaced it with a new, more general model based on ratios of perceived contrasts. M. K. Albert's (2008) main experiment aimed to test the model the authors have previously rejected. The authors argue that M. K. Albert's experimental method was flawed and that his experiments did not test either the authors' original model or the authors' subsequent model that replaced it. M. K. Albert failed to provide any account of the data that the authors' model predicts, and he did not provide any theory to explain his own data. The authors conclude that the discrepancy between M. K. Albert's results and all models of transparency results from problems in the methods used in his experiments, not from the shortcomings of extant theory.

AB - In M. Singh and B. L. Anderson (2002), the authors proposed a model based on ratios of Michelson contrasts to explain how human observers quantitatively scale the perceived opacity of transparent surfaces. In subsequent work (B. L. Anderson, M. Singh, & J. Meng, 2006), the authors found that this model failed to generalize to other contexts and replaced it with a new, more general model based on ratios of perceived contrasts. M. K. Albert's (2008) main experiment aimed to test the model the authors have previously rejected. The authors argue that M. K. Albert's experimental method was flawed and that his experiments did not test either the authors' original model or the authors' subsequent model that replaced it. M. K. Albert failed to provide any account of the data that the authors' model predicts, and he did not provide any theory to explain his own data. The authors conclude that the discrepancy between M. K. Albert's results and all models of transparency results from problems in the methods used in his experiments, not from the shortcomings of extant theory.

KW - lightness

KW - perceptual organization

KW - scission

KW - transparency

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=56349120591&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=56349120591&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0013666

DO - 10.1037/a0013666

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:56349120591

VL - 115

SP - 1144

EP - 1151

JO - Psychological Review

JF - Psychological Review

SN - 0033-295X

IS - 4

ER -