title: Holography does not account for goodness: a critique of van der Helm and Leeuwenberg (1996).
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.
authors.affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. cnl.olivers@psy.vu.nl
authors.forename: Christian N L
authors.initials: CN
authors.lastname: Olivers
authors.forename: Nick
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Chater
authors.forename: Derrick G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Watson
mesh_terms: D002755:Choice Behavior; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D006696:Holography; D006801:Humans; D019545:Intuition; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011601:Psychophysics; D011930:Reaction Time; D012718:Set, Psychology