On 2016 May 22, Lydia Maniatis commented:

It would be great if vision articles stopped using the straw man of "border contrast" or lateral inhibition to frame cosmetic debates. Here, for example, we learn in the abstract that "The competing accounts for perceptual constancy of surface lightness fall into two classes of model: One derives lightness estimates from border contrasts, and another explicitly infers [meaning?] surface reflectance."

The former "model" of lightness perception hasn't been credible for almost one hundred years. The reason it hasn't been viable is that it has been falsified. The reason that these "debates" still persist is that in the current culture, ad hoc accounts are given a free pass while falsifications merely indicate need for "more research." Oikonnen et al (2016) know (or should know) that half of the argument is a straw man:

"Although this framework is attractive in its simplicity, it fails to explain some well-known lightness phenomena, such as the effect of spatial configuration on perceived lightness (e.g., Adelson, 1993; Anderson & Winawer, 2008; Bloj & Hurlbert, 2002; Gilchrist, 1977; Hillis & Brainard, 2007b; Knill & Kersten, 1991; Purves, Shimpi, & Lotto, 1999; Schirillo, Reeves, & Arend, 1990)."

Thus, Oikonen et al (2016) propose to "adjudicate" between two "frameworks," one of which has already failed. What is gained by beating a dead horse? Until and unless the proponents of the failed models resolve the difficulties by redeeming the failures on a theoretical basis, their account is not in the game.

Short version: Ad hoc "successes" don't outweigh falsifications, so there's no need to keep falsifying over and over. It's just redundant.

On 2016 May 22, Lydia Maniatis commented:

It would be great if vision articles stopped using the straw man of "border contrast" or lateral inhibition to frame cosmetic debates. Here, for example, we learn in the abstract that "The competing accounts for perceptual constancy of surface lightness fall into two classes of model: One derives lightness estimates from border contrasts, and another explicitly infers [meaning?] surface reflectance."

The former "model" of lightness perception hasn't been credible for almost one hundred years. The reason it hasn't been viable is that it has been falsified. The reason that these "debates" still persist is that in the current culture, ad hoc accounts are given a free pass while falsifications merely indicate need for "more research." Oikonnen et al (2016) know (or should know) that half of the argument is a straw man:

"Although this framework is attractive in its simplicity, it fails to explain some well-known lightness phenomena, such as the effect of spatial configuration on perceived lightness (e.g., Adelson, 1993; Anderson & Winawer, 2008; Bloj & Hurlbert, 2002; Gilchrist, 1977; Hillis & Brainard, 2007b; Knill & Kersten, 1991; Purves, Shimpi, & Lotto, 1999; Schirillo, Reeves, & Arend, 1990)."

Thus, Oikonen et al (2016) propose to "adjudicate" between two "frameworks," one of which has already failed. What is gained by beating a dead horse? Until and unless the proponents of the failed models resolve the difficulties by redeeming the failures on a theoretical basis, their account is not in the game.

Short version: Ad hoc "successes" don't outweigh falsifications, so there's no need to keep falsifying over and over. It's just redundant.