6 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Cyril Latimer [5]Cyril R. Latimer [1]
  1. Cyril Latimer (1999). Binary Oppositions and What Focuses in Focal Attention. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):383-384.
    Pylyshyn makes a convincing case that early visual processing is cognitively impenetrable, and although I question the utility of binary oppositions such as penetrable/impenetrable, for the most part I am in agreement. The author does not provide explicit designations or denotations for the terms penetrable and impenetrable, which appear quite arbitrary. Furthermore, the use of focal attention smacks of an homunculus, and the account appears to slip too easily between the perceptual, the cognitive, and the neurophysiological.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Cyril Latimer (1999). Is There More to Visual Attention Than Meets the Eye? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):690-691.
    Models of saccade generation and visual selective attention must explain how and why particular targets are selected. Findlay & Walker do an excellent job of explaining the how of visual selection, but not the why. For a salience map to be more than a description of the relative importance of potential targets, there must be some account of the learning and inheritance that fashion its peaks and troughs. Point of gaze is not necessarily region of attention, and it may be (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Cyril Latimer (1998). The Chorus Scheme: Representation or Isomorphism, Holistic or Analytic? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):476-477.
    The Chorus scheme could be an important step in the search for solutions to the symbol grounding problem (Harnad 1990), but Edelman does not address the potential difficulties inherent in downgrading differences in favor of similarities in a categorization device. Isomorphism rather than representation is a more coherent way of thinking about Chorus whose modules are probably analytic rather than holistic.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Cyril R. Latimer (1998). New Features for Old: Creation or Derivation? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):31-32.
    Schyns, Goldstone & Thibaut oppose the notion of fixed feature analysis, suggesting the possibility of flexible feature creation in object recognition and categorisation. Such proposals cannot be assessed until clear definitions of the objects in question and their decompositions are formulated. Flexibility may come from the decompositions of objects rather than from feature creation.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Catherine Stevens & Cyril Latimer (1993). Recognition of Short Tonal Compositions by Connectionist Models and Listeners : Effects of Feature Manipulation and Training. In M. G. Boroda (ed.), Fundamentals of Musical Language: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Catherine Stevens & Cyril Latimer (1992). A Comparison of Connectionist Models of Music Recognition and Human Performance. Minds and Machines 2 (4):379-400.
    Current artificial neural network or connectionist models of music cognition embody feature-extraction and feature-weighting principles. This paper reports two experiments which seek evidence for similar processes mediating recognition of short musical compositions by musically trained and untrained listeners. The experiments are cast within a pattern recognition framework based on the vision-audition analogue wherein music is considered an auditory pattern consisting of local and global features. Local features such as inter-note interval, and global features such as melodic contour, are derived from (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation