Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (1):31-31 (2005)
|Abstract||Contrary to Pothos, rule- and similarity-based processes cannot be distinguished by dimensionality. Rather, one must consider the goal of the processing: what the system will do with the resulting representations. Research on speech perception demonstrates that the degree to which speech categories are gradient (or similarity-based) is a function of the utility of within-category variation for further processing.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Dominic W. Massaro (1998). Integrating Cues in Speech Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):275-275.
Richard Shillcock (2000). Interaction, Function Words, and the Wider Goals of Speech Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (3):346-346.
Hadas Shintel & Howard C. Nusbaum (2004). Dialogue Processing: Automatic Alignment or Controlled Understanding? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2):210-211.
Stephen Andrew Butterfill (2009). Seeing Causings and Hearing Gestures. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (236):405-428.
Howard C. Nusbaum, Jeremy I. Skipper & Steven L. Small (2001). A Sensory-Attentional Account of Speech Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):995-996.
Jagmeet S. Kanwal (1998). Charting Speech with Bats Without Requiring Maps. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):272-273.
Irene Appelbaum (1999). The Dogma of Isomorphism: A Case Study From Speech Perception. Philosophy of Science 66 (3):S250-S259.
Irene Appelbaum (1998). Analytic Isomorphism and Speech Perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):748-749.
Irene Appelbaum (1998). Fodor, Modularity, and Speech Perception. Philosophical Psychology 11 (3):317-330.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #291,386 of 722,815 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?