Reviewer 2
Review of the manuscript titled A Gestalt bubble model of the interaction of lightness, brightness, and form perception, by S. Lehar
Note on [Author's Responses] in this document.
On Page 7, Line 5, the Author says:
"Since the scope of the model, i.e. the breadth of data that it is designed to explain, is considerably greater than that normally addressed by such models, this model will of necessity be somewhat sketchy, and many details will remain to be defined."
Then, the title should read "A Gestalt bubble sketch..." rather than "A Gestalt bubble model..."
On Page 17, line 17 from below, he says:
"In other words, this model represents a hypothesis which remains to be tested for feasibility."
Then, why did not the Author test it?
The author often uses terms that I do not understand. For example: "low level percept of local features," (Page 1) [Author's Response] "the percept is reified," (Page 3) [Author's Response] and "perceptual tissue" (Page 13). [Author's Response] The specification "subjective percept" (Figure 3) makes me think that the Author believes that there are non-subjective percepts, which is something I also do not understand. [Author's Response] The sentence "...the function of the visual system is to reconstruct a representation of the phenomenal world" (Page 9, Line 2 from below) makes me perplexed. [Author's Response]
The manuscript is excessively long. It takes 13 pages before the "model" is presented. In my opinion, these pages should be reduced to 1, or 2 at most. The "model," being a sketch, should also be presented using a smaller number of pages, let us say 3, or 4 at most. Final comments should also be short, 1 or 2 pages.
After the Author has done this, he should resubmit his new manuscript for further review.