The article sheds doubt on edge detection as being the major reason why we can interpret drawings as what they attempt to portray, because drawings are often mi

The article sheds doubt on edge detection as being the major reason why we can interpret drawings as what they attempt to portray, because drawings are often missing shading and color. Drawings also often drop a great amount of detail, and proper proportion information, and remain recognizable. Think of cave paintings or Picasso’s bull. But if you consider image interpretation as a competitive classification, then missing information doesn’t present a problem. If color, shading, detail & proportion are missing, then they are missing from all possible pattern interpretations equally. That leaves the final classification problem relatively unchanged despite all the missing info. EDIT: in fact, if my hypothesis is true we should be able to see patterns with even less information! For instance, dropping all internal detail, and even most shape. As in seeing a face profile on the side of a cloud that otherwise looks nothing like a human head. Or dropping edges completely. Perhaps seeing an object where there are only stars creating points of light. Please post your anecdotal experiments at 404experimentreports.com!