  In a recent publication (Tzvetanov (2018), bioRxiv 465807), I made an
extensive analysis with computational modelling and psychophysics of the simple
experimental design of Dr. D.Tadin (Tadin, Lappin, Gilroy and Blake (2003),
Nature, 424:312-315) about motion perception changes in humans due to size and
contrast of the stimulus. This publication sparked from strong claims made in
Schallmo et al. (2018) (eLife, 7:e30334) about two important points: (1)
"divisive normalization", not inhibitory and excitatory mechanisms, creates the
observed psychophysical results and (2) drug-enhanced inhibition showed
perceptual outcomes that hint to "weaker suppression" (i.e. inhibition) not
stronger "suppression". Schallmo & Murray (2018, bioRxiv, 495291) presented
concerns about my extensive publication, specifically about the parts where I
directly analysed some of their methods, results and claims. Here, I show that
their concerns do not provide clear answers to my specific points and further
do not mention other major critiques of data interpretation and modelling of
this experimental design. Therefore, I maintain all my claims that were
elaborated in details in my first publication (Tzvetanov, 2018, bioRxiv
465807): the specific ones that analyse the results of their and other studies,
but also the more broad modelling that is applicable to any study using the
simple experimental design of Dr. D.Tadin.
