From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is Inadequate

The distinction between modal and amodal completion is ubiquitous in the perception literature. It goes back to the seminal publication “Les compléments amodaux des structures perceptives” by A. Michotte, G. Thinès, and G. Crabbé (Publications Universitaires de Louvain: Louvain) in 1964. We review a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tom R. Scherzer, Franz Faul
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2019-05-01
Series:i-Perception
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669519841639
id doaj-784ffc192aa242509f0f65f5396aa796
record_format Article
spelling doaj-784ffc192aa242509f0f65f5396aa7962020-11-25T03:24:25ZengSAGE Publishingi-Perception2041-66952019-05-011010.1177/2041669519841639From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is InadequateTom R. ScherzerFranz FaulThe distinction between modal and amodal completion is ubiquitous in the perception literature. It goes back to the seminal publication “Les compléments amodaux des structures perceptives” by A. Michotte, G. Thinès, and G. Crabbé (Publications Universitaires de Louvain: Louvain) in 1964. We review and discuss this work in this article and show commonalities and differences to today’s view. We then argue that the dichotomous distinction between modal and amodal completions is problematic in phenomenological, empirical, logical, and theoretical terms. Finally, we propose alternative criteria allowing for a more differentiated classification scheme for completion phenomena. This scheme seems to be consistent with all known empirical findings and can also be generalized to nonvisual domains of perception.https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669519841639
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Tom R. Scherzer
Franz Faul
spellingShingle Tom R. Scherzer
Franz Faul
From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is Inadequate
i-Perception
author_facet Tom R. Scherzer
Franz Faul
author_sort Tom R. Scherzer
title From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is Inadequate
title_short From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is Inadequate
title_full From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is Inadequate
title_fullStr From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is Inadequate
title_full_unstemmed From Michotte Until Today: Why the Dichotomous Classification of Modal and Amodal Completions Is Inadequate
title_sort from michotte until today: why the dichotomous classification of modal and amodal completions is inadequate
publisher SAGE Publishing
series i-Perception
issn 2041-6695
publishDate 2019-05-01
description The distinction between modal and amodal completion is ubiquitous in the perception literature. It goes back to the seminal publication “Les compléments amodaux des structures perceptives” by A. Michotte, G. Thinès, and G. Crabbé (Publications Universitaires de Louvain: Louvain) in 1964. We review and discuss this work in this article and show commonalities and differences to today’s view. We then argue that the dichotomous distinction between modal and amodal completions is problematic in phenomenological, empirical, logical, and theoretical terms. Finally, we propose alternative criteria allowing for a more differentiated classification scheme for completion phenomena. This scheme seems to be consistent with all known empirical findings and can also be generalized to nonvisual domains of perception.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669519841639
work_keys_str_mv AT tomrscherzer frommichotteuntiltodaywhythedichotomousclassificationofmodalandamodalcompletionsisinadequate
AT franzfaul frommichotteuntiltodaywhythedichotomousclassificationofmodalandamodalcompletionsisinadequate
_version_ 1724601713200988160