On 2015 Sep 10, Lydia Maniatis commented:

The authors claim that their data “characterize the luminance-to-lightness mapping in high-dynamic-range images that lack cues indicating the presence of multiple regions of illumination.” The assumption is that their checkerboards do not produce differential illumination or transparency effects, but a look at their stimuli proves otherwise. That checkerboards can produce impressions of differential illumination is acknowledged by Allred, Radonjic, Gilchrist & Brainard (2012) albeit non-commitally. The stimuli may lack known cues, but self-evidently they do not lack cues.

The authors conclusions are also complicated by the fact that in higher-range stimuli, the highest luminance was reported as glowing “on most trials.” They dismiss these results as being due to the presentation of stimuli on an “emissive display” but this doesn't explain why glow wasn't reported in the lower-range stimuli for targets of the same luminance.

On 2015 Sep 10, Lydia Maniatis commented:

The authors claim that their data “characterize the luminance-to-lightness mapping in high-dynamic-range images that lack cues indicating the presence of multiple regions of illumination.” The assumption is that their checkerboards do not produce differential illumination or transparency effects, but a look at their stimuli proves otherwise. That checkerboards can produce impressions of differential illumination is acknowledged by Allred, Radonjic, Gilchrist & Brainard (2012) albeit non-commitally. The stimuli may lack known cues, but self-evidently they do not lack cues.

The authors conclusions are also complicated by the fact that in higher-range stimuli, the highest luminance was reported as glowing “on most trials.” They dismiss these results as being due to the presentation of stimuli on an “emissive display” but this doesn't explain why glow wasn't reported in the lower-range stimuli for targets of the same luminance.