A better approach to goodness:
Reply to Wagemans (1999)

Peter A. van der Helm, Emanuel L. J. Leeuwenberg

---

Abstract. In P. A. van der Helm and E. L. J. Leeuwenberg (1996), the authors presented a representation model for the goodness, or detectability, of visual regularities such as mirror symmetry and repetition. Wagemans (1999) acknowledged that this holographic goodness model has considerable explanatory power, but he also argued that it is not good enough yet. He challenged van der Helm and Leeuwenberg to qualify some open ends of their representation model, in particular those concerning its process assumptions. He also questioned the authors' assessment of previous goodness accounts such as S. E. Palmer's (1982, 1983) transformational approach and his own bootstrap model. He concluded that it is expedient to aim at a synthesis of useful aspects of diverse accounts of goodness, but he did not establish such a synthesis. Van der Helm and Leeuwenberg agree with his conclusion that such a synthesis is a worthy cause, but they disagree with his evaluation of the issues involved. This article is a reply with an alternative evaluation of these issues, advancing the discussion to a process-representation synthesis called holographic bootstrapping.

---