Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
J Vis. 2022 Mar 2;22(4):16. doi: 10.1167/jov.22.4.16.
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.
于、托德和彼得罗夫（2021 年）以及于、彼得罗夫和托德（2021 年）研究了当物体在不同距离处进行立体观察时出现的形状恒常性失败。尽管这一结果之前已经在金字塔或圆柱体等简单物体上得到了报道，但我们研究了具有双侧对称性的更复杂物体，以检验李、泽田、史、权和皮兹洛（2011 年）的说法，即这些物体的感知是正确的。泽田和皮兹洛（2022 年）对我们的实验提出了一些批评，但他们似乎认为形状的概念是由他们的模型可计算的内容定义的。如果使用的刺激不能被他们的模型区分，则被视为退化，而不能由他们的模型执行的任务则被认为是基于形状以外的东西。这使他们能够忽略与他们的模型不一致的经验证据。相比之下，我们认为形状感知的所有可靠方面都值得解释。我们还认为，形状有许多不同的属性，关于形状的信息也有许多不同的来源，这些属性和来源在不同的情况下可能是相关的。不太可能所有这些都可以用单个模型来解释。
