Is Cognitive Neuropsychology Plausible? The Perils of Sitting on a One-Legged Stool

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Is Cognitive Neuropsychology Plausible? The Perils of Sitting on a One-Legged Stool

Citable link to this page

. . . . . .

Title: Is Cognitive Neuropsychology Plausible? The Perils of Sitting on a One-Legged Stool
Author: Kosslyn, Stephen Michael; Intriligator, James M.

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Kosslyn, Stephen Michael, and James M. Intriligator. 1992. Is cognitive neuropsychology plausible? The perils of sitting on a one-legged stool. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 4(1): 96-105.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: We distinguish between strong and weak cognitive neuropsychology, with the former attempting to provide direct insights into the nature of information processing and the latter having the more modest goal of providing constraints on such theories. We argue that strong cognitive neuropsychology, although possible, is unlikely to succeed and that researchers will fare better by combining behavioral, computational, and neural investigations. Arguments offered by Caramazza (1992) in defense of strong neuropsychology are analyzed, and examples are offered to illustrate the power of alternative points of view.
Published Version: doi:10.1162/jocn.1992.4.1.96
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:3595964

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • FAS Scholarly Articles [6463]
    Peer reviewed scholarly articles from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University
 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters