1baff70e2669e8376347efd3a874a341-Reviews.html

First provide a summary of the paper, and then address the following criteria: Quality, clarity, originality and significance. COMMENTS BASED ON REVIEWER DISCUSSIONS AND AUTHOR REBUTTAL: I agree with the other reviewers that more could be done to constrain the specifics of the cue integration mechanism. However, I believe that if the data set is expanded, allowing the models to be better constrained, then the paper is appropriate and interesting for the NIPS community. I have left my quality score as it was, but I agree with the other reviewers that the paper merits a ``1'' rather than a ``2'' for impact score. ORIGINAL REVIEW: Summary: This paper extends an existing model for the perception of visual speed that uses a Bayesian observer model acting on the activity of independent spatiotemporal frequency channels. Previously, the model accounted for illusions of perceived speed by postulating the Bayes-optimal combination of noisy sensory representations with a prior for slow speeds.