Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The imaginary fundamentalists: The unshocking truth about Bayesian cognitive science.Nick Chater, Noah Goodman, Thomas L. Griffiths, Charles Kemp, Mike Oaksford & Joshua B. Tenenbaum - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (4):194-196.
    If Bayesian Fundamentalism existed, Jones & Love's (J&L's) arguments would provide a necessary corrective. But it does not. Bayesian cognitive science is deeply concerned with characterizing algorithms and representations, and, ultimately, implementations in neural circuits; it pays close attention to environmental structure and the constraints of behavioral data, when available; and it rigorously compares multiple models, both within and across papers. J&L's recommendation of Bayesian Enlightenment corresponds to past, present, and, we hope, future practice in Bayesian cognitive science.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Are developmental disorders like cases of adult brain damage? Implications from connectionist modelling.Michael Thomas & Annette Karmiloff-Smith - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):727-750.
    It is often assumed that similar domain-specific behavioural impairments found in cases of adult brain damage and developmental disorders correspond to similar underlying causes, and can serve as convergent evidence for the modular structure of the normal adult cognitive system. We argue that this correspondence is contingent on an unsupported assumption that atypical development can produce selective deficits while the rest of the system develops normally (Residual Normality), and that this assumption tends to bias data collection in the field. Based (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • Models of atypical development must also be models of normal development.Gert Westermann & Denis Mareschal - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):771-772.
    Connectionist models aiming to reveal the mechanisms of atypical development must in their undamaged form constitute plausible models of normal development and follow a developmental trajectory that matches empirical data. Constructivist models that adapt their structure to the learning task satisfy this demand. They are therefore more informative in the study of atypical development than the static models employed by Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith (T&K-S).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation