**1. Introduction**

In the context of this journal's special issue *Vividness, consciousness, and mental imagery: Making the missing links across disciplines and methods* [1], Pinna and Conti [2] presented fine phenomena concerning the salience and role of contrast polarity in human visual perception, particularly in amodal completion. They also claimed (1) that these phenomena go against existing simplicity and likelihood approaches to visual perception, and (2) that simplicity and likelihood are equivalent. Before they submitted their article to this journal, however, they had been informed that these claims are incorrect—a matter, by the way, of formal facts rather than psychological opinions. To set the stage, I first sketch the perceptual topic of their study.
