Unifying by binding: Will binding really bind?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):884-885 (2001)
| Abstract | The theory of event coding by Hommel et al. proposes that feature binding is a central component of action planning. To evaluate the binding hypothesis, we consider findings from studies of action-perception interference and bimanual movements. We argue that although binding of action features may be a valuable concept, interference from partial feature overlap does not provide a parsimonious account for the observed phenomena. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRobert F. Hadley (2006). Neural Circuits, Matrices, and Conjunctive Binding. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (1):80-80.
James W. Garson (2001). (Dis)Solving the Binding Problem. Philosophical Psychology 14 (4):381 – 392.
Adina L. Roskies (1999). The Binding Problem. Neuron 24:7--9.
Glyn Humphreys (2012). There's Binding and There's Binding, or is There Just Binding? : Neuropsychological Insights From Bálint's Syndrome. In Jeremy M. Wolfe & Lynn C. Robertson (eds.), From Perception to Consciousness: Searching with Anne Treisman. Oxford University Press.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads3 ( #202,107 of 550,803 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 550,803 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
