Presents some additional comments from the current authors regarding their original article Interpolation processes in object perception: Reply to Anderson (2007). As this exchange concludes, we believe that the account of interpolation and object formation proposed by Kellman and Shipley (1991), further developed in recent years (Kellman, 2003; Kellman, Guttman, & Wickens, 2001), and most recently extended to 3-D interpolation (Kellman, Garrigan, & Shipley, 2005) and spatiotemporal object formation (Palmer, Kellman, & Shipley, 2006), remains viable. Here we briefly note some progress in this discussion, including positions taken by Anderson (2007a) that have since been abandoned. We address the new positions that Anderson (2007b) takes, which now focus on interpolations that switch between modal and amodal appearance, data on interpolated contour shape, evidence and methodological concerns about early interpolation, and physiological evidence.