On 2016 Jun 28, Lydia Maniatis commented:

No real objection to this study, which is refreshingly sensible. I want to note, though, that the term "geometric figure-ground cues" is no more specific than the term "good shape cues," both of which are essentially place-holders for further specification (e.g. convex shape). I want to note this because "good shape" is a Gestalt concept which was trivialised and dismissed, but which evidently is necessary. It's not reducible to points, orientations, angles, "features," "signals," or probabilities. (The probability of a particular seen shape can be, essentially, zero.)

On 2016 Jun 28, Lydia Maniatis commented:

No real objection to this study, which is refreshingly sensible. I want to note, though, that the term "geometric figure-ground cues" is no more specific than the term "good shape cues," both of which are essentially place-holders for further specification (e.g. convex shape). I want to note this because "good shape" is a Gestalt concept which was trivialised and dismissed, but which evidently is necessary. It's not reducible to points, orientations, angles, "features," "signals," or probabilities. (The probability of a particular seen shape can be, essentially, zero.)