I read the first dozen or so pages of this revision with the clear impression that this paper was unlikely ever to merit publication. A salient flaw of the original version - its length and opacity - still characterizes at least the first section of the present revision. To my surprise, however, my initial opinion changed significantly over the second half of the paper. I believe that the paper needs another serious effort at revision, but now I think that it offers enough promise of a valuable contribution to merit the time and effort of the author, reviewers, and editor to warrent the effort.
I recommend that the first 11 pages or so - from p. 2 to 12, preceding the description of the Directional Harmonic Theory (DHT) - be reduced to about 1-2 pages. I did not retain a copy of the original submission, but the revision appeared to have changed little from the original. Through the first 11 pages, I struggled to follow precisely what problem was to be solved. My attention wandered frequently as I tried to extract the central issues and ideas from the dense camouflage of abstract and argumentative text. The fact that this revised ms. is more than 22 single-spaced pages, with small margins, long paragraphs, and 25 illustrations is unpleasant for reviewers and readers alike. Unless this paper can be made significantly more concise, I think it is very unlikely to ever have any significant readership or impact.
Despite my dislike of the first half or so of the paper, I was surprised that at least I think I understand the basic ideas of the DHT. I have not yet tried to carry out any of these computations on other potentially relevant stimulus patterns, but the computations appear to be straight-forward. The theory will require additional tests and extensions, but I think that can be done. I mentioned in my previous review that this DHT model appears to resemble both Blum's grass-fire model and extensions by Steve Pizer and also Chris Tyler's work on symmetry, and the same relevance is again apparent to me. Overall, the main theoretical ideas appear to me plausible and potentially important. The theoretical speculations about underlying physiology (e.g., regarding diffusion of alternating currents across cell membranes), in the final Discussion section, also seemed to me reasonable and stimulating, though I am not an expert on this topic.
I believe that even the last half of the paper would benefit from pruning. Similarly, the illustrations should also be pruned so that the principal organizational patterns and theoretical ideas stand out more clearly in the reader's eye and mind. The final Discussion section was readable, but I think that it too can be more concise.