Search results for 'Domain-General' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  14
    James L. McClelland, David C. Plaut, Stephen J. Gotts & Tiago V. Maia (2003). Developing a Domain-General Framework for Cognition: What is the Best Approach? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (5):611-614.
    We share with Anderson & Lebiere (A&L) (and with Newell before them) the goal of developing a domain-general framework for modeling cognition, and we take seriously the issue of evaluation criteria. We advocate a more focused approach than the one reflected in Newell's criteria, based on analysis of failures as well as successes of models brought into close contact with experimental data. A&L attribute the shortcomings of our parallel-distributed processing framework to a failure to acknowledge a symbolic level of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  2.  22
    Ron Mallon, Ought We to Abandon a Domain-General Treatment of "Ought"?[I].
    Leda Cosmides and John Tooby have some advice for moral philosophers and deontic logicians trying to understand deontic notions like ought: give up trying to provide a univocal, domain-general treatment. The domain-specific character of human cognition means that such a research program is probably fruitless and probably pointless. It is probably fruitless, since a univocal account of the meaning of "ought" will not capture the multiple inferential patterns of deontic reasoning exhibited in different contexts (and similarly for lots of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  9
    Hongbin Wang & Paul Bello (2006). Ritualized Behavior as a Domain-General Choice of Actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (6):633-634.
    Although we agree that ritualized behavior is a mystery that calls out for an explanation, we do not think that the proposed domain-specific two-component system offers an empirically well-justified and theoretically parsimonious description of the phenomena. Instead, we believe that the deployment of domain-general mechanisms based on choice of actions could also explain the essential features of ritualized behavior. (Published Online February 8 2007).
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  1
    John Michael & Alessandro D’Ausilio (2015). Domain-Specific and Domain-General Processes in Social Perception – A Complementary Approach. Consciousness and Cognition 36:434-437.
    In this brief discussion, we explicate and evaluate Heyes and colleagues’ deflationary approach to interpreting apparent evidence of domain-specific processes for social percep- tion. We argue that the deflationary approach sheds important light on how functionally specific processes in social perception can be subserved at least in part by domain-general processes. On the other hand, we also argue that the fruitfulness of this approach has been unnecessarily hampered by a contrastive conception of the relationship between domain- general and domain-specific (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  2
    Evelina Fedorenko (2014). The Role of Domain-General Cognitive Control in Language Comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 5.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  6.  59
    Anthony P. Atkinson & M. Wheeler (2004). The Grain of Domains: The Evolutionary-Psychological Case Against Domain-General Cognition. Mind and Language 19 (2):147-76.
    Prominent evolutionary psychologists have argued that our innate psychological endowment consists of numerous domainspecific cognitive resources, rather than a few domaingeneral ones. In the light of some conceptual clarification, we examine the central inprinciple arguments that evolutionary psychologists mount against domaingeneral cognition. We conclude (a) that the fundamental logic of Darwinism, as advanced within evolutionary psychology, does not entail that the innate mind consists exclusively, or even massively, of domainspecific features, and (b) that a mixed innate cognitive economy of domainspecific (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  7.  4
    Natasha Z. Kirkham, Jonathan A. Slemmer & Scott P. Johnson (2002). Visual Statistical Learning in Infancy: Evidence for a Domain General Learning Mechanism. Cognition 83 (2):B35-B42.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   59 citations  
  8. J. K. Hamlin (2014). Context-Dependent Social Evaluation in 4.5-Month-Old Human Infants: The Role of Domain-General Versus Domain-Specific Processes in the Development of Social Evaluation. [REVIEW] Frontiers in Psychology 5.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9. Peter E. Wais & Adam Gazzaley (2014). Distractibility During Retrieval of Long-Term Memory: Domain-General Interference, Neural Networks and Increased Susceptibility in Normal Aging. Frontiers in Psychology 5.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  10.  14
    Vittorio Girotto & Katya Tentori (2008). Is Domain-General Thinking a Domain-Specific Adaptation? Mind and Society 7 (2):167-175.
    According to Kanazawa (Psychol Rev 111:512–523, 2004), general intelligence, which he considers as a synonym of abstract thinking, evolved specifically to allow our ancestors to deal with evolutionary novel problems while conferring no advantage in solving evolutionary familiar ones. We present a study whereby the results contradict Kanazawa’s hypothesis by demonstrating that performance on an evolutionary novel problem (an abstract reasoning task) predicts performance on an evolutionary familiar problem (a social reasoning task).
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  4
    M. C. McKinnon & M. Moscovitch (2007). Domain-General Contributions to Social Reasoning: Theory of Mind and Deontic Reasoning Re-Explored. Cognition 102 (2):179-218.
  12.  13
    Sandra E. Trehub & Erin E. Hannon (2006). Infant Music Perception: Domain-General or Domain-Specific Mechanisms? Cognition 100 (1):73-99.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  13.  9
    Irene P. Kan, Susan Teubner-Rhodes, Anna B. Drummey, Lauren Nutile, Lauren Krupa & Jared M. Novick (2013). To Adapt or Not to Adapt: The Question of Domain-General Cognitive Control. Cognition 129 (3):637-651.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  14.  5
    Sam J. Gilbert (2015). Strategic Use of Reminders: Influence of Both Domain-General and Task-Specific Metacognitive Confidence, Independent of Objective Memory Ability. Consciousness and Cognition 33:245-260.
  15.  2
    Mariagrazia Capizzi, Ettore Ambrosini, Sandra Arbula, Ilaria Mazzonetto & Antonino Vallesi (2016). Electrophysiological Evidence for Domain-General Processes in Task-Switching. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  44
    Vladimir M. Sloutsky (2010). Mechanisms of Cognitive Development: Domain-General Learning or Domain-Specific Constraints? Cognitive Science 34 (7):1125-1130.
  17.  3
    Valerie A. Thompson (2000). The Task-Specific Nature of Domain-General Reasoning. Cognition 76 (3):209-268.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  18.  1
    Woolgar Alexandra, Jackson Jade & Duncan John (2015). How Domain General is Information Coding in the Brain? A Meta-Analysis of 93 Multi-Voxel Pattern Analysis Studies. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  1
    E. Charles Leek, Kenneth S. L. Yuen & Stephen J. Johnston (2016). Domain General Sequence Operations Contribute to Pre-SMA Involvement in Visuo-Spatial Processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  7
    Joel S. Snyder, Breanne D. Yerkes & Michael A. Pitts (2015). Testing Domain-General Theories of Perceptual Awareness with Auditory Brain Responses. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (6):295-297.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  3
    Sandra R. Waxman & Amy E. Booth (2001). On the Insufficiency of Evidence for a Domain-General Account of Word Learning. Cognition 78 (3):277-279.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22.  5
    Clare Press & Richard Cook (2015). Beyond Action-Specific Simulation: Domain-General Motor Contributions to Perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (4):176-178.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  2
    Alia Martin & Laurie R. Santos (2014). Understanding the Role of Mirror Neurons in Action Understanding Will Require More Than a Domain-General Account. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (2):211.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  1
    Wang Hongbin & Bello Paul (2006). Ritualized Behavior as a Domain-General Choice of Actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (6).
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  4
    Elizabeth Bates, Frederic Dick & Beverly Wulfeck (1999). Not so Fast: Domain-General Factors Can Account for Selective Deficits in Grammatical Processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):96-97.
    Normals display selective deficits in morphology and syntax under adverse processing conditions. Digit loads do not impair processing of passives and object relatives but do impair processing of grammatical morphemes. Perceptual degradation and temporal compression selectively impair several aspects of grammar, including passives and object relatives. Hence we replicate Caplan & Waters's specific findings but reach opposite conclusions, based on wider evidence.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  1
    Ayse P. Saygin & Frederic Dick (2014). The Emergence of Mirror-Like Response Properties From Domain-General Principles in Vision and Audition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (2):219.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  1
    Kevin MacDonald (2014). Domain-General Mechanisms: What They Are, How They Evolved, and How They Interact with Modular, Domain-Specific Mechanisms to Enable Cohesive Human Groups. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (4):430-431.
  28. Ryan A. Barry, Katharine Graf Estes & Susan M. Rivera (2015). Domain General Learning: Infants Use Social and Non-Social Cues When Learning Object Statistics. Frontiers in Psychology 6.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Felicia W. Chu, Kristy vanMarle & David C. Geary (2016). Predicting Children's Reading and Mathematics Achievement From Early Quantitative Knowledge and Domain-General Cognitive Abilities. Frontiers in Psychology 7.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Jennifer Culbertson & Simon Kirby (2016). Simplicity and Specificity in Language: Domain-General Biases Have Domain-Specific Effects. Frontiers in Psychology 6.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Caroline Hornung, Christine Schiltz, Martin Brunner & Romain Martin (2014). Predicting First-Grade Mathematics Achievement: The Contributions of Domain-General Cognitive Abilities, Nonverbal Number Sense, and Early Number Competence. Frontiers in Psychology 5.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Huanhuan Liu, Lijuan Liang, Susan Dunlap, Ning Fan & Baoguo Chen (2016). The Effect of Domain-General Inhibition-Related Training on Language Switching: An ERP Study. Cognition 146:264-276.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Isabella Mutschler, Céline Reinbold, Johanna Wankerl, Erich Seifritz & Tonio Ball (2013). Structural Basis of Empathy and the Domain General Region in the Anterior Insular Cortex. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Joris Van de Cavey & Robert J. Hartsuiker (2016). Is There a Domain-General Cognitive Structuring System? Evidence From Structural Priming Across Music, Math, Action Descriptions, and Language. Cognition 146:172-184.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  27
    Reza Tavakol & Roustam Zalaletdinov (1998). On the Domain of Applicability of General Relativity. Foundations of Physics 28 (2):307-331.
    We consider the domain of applicability of general relativity (GR), as a classical theory of gravity, by considering its applications to a variety of settings of physical interest as well as its relationship with real observations. We argue that, as it stands, GR is deficient whether it is treated as a microscopic or a macroscopic theory of gravity. We briefly discuss some recent attempts at removing this shortcoming through the construction of a macroscopic theory of gravity. We point out that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  36. Satoshi Kanazawa (2004). General Intelligence as a Domain-Specific Adaptation. Psychological Review 111 (2):512-523.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  37. Pw Cheng & Jh Larkin (1987). Teaching General Strategies and Domain-Specific Concepts in Physics. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 25 (5):328-329.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  9
    David Caplan & Gloria Waters (1999). Issues Regarding General and Domain-Specific Resources. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1):114-122.
    Commentaries on our target article raise further questions about the validity of an undifferentiated central executive that supplies resources to all verbal tasks. Working memory tasks are more likely to measure divided attention capacities and the efficiency of performing tasks within specific domains than a shared resource pool. In our response to the commentaries, we review and further expand upon empirical findings that relate performance on working memory tasks to sentence processing, concluding that our view that the two are not (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  25
    Paul Sheldon Davies, James H. Fetzer & Thomas R. Foster (1995). Logical Reasoning and Domain Specificity. Biology and Philosophy 10 (1):1-37.
    The social exchange theory of reasoning, which is championed by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, falls under the general rubric evolutionary psychology and asserts that human reasoning is governed by content-dependent, domain-specific, evolutionarily-derived algorithms. According to Cosmides and Tooby, the presumptive existence of what they call cheater-detection algorithms disconfirms the claim that we reason via general-purpose mechanisms or via inductively acquired principles. We contend that the Cosmides/Tooby arguments in favor of domain-specific algorithms or evolutionarily-derived mechanisms fail and that the notion (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  40.  2
    Michael R. Waldmann (2007). Combining Versus Analyzing Multiple Causes: How Domain Assumptions and Task Context Affect Integration Rules. Cognitive Science 31 (2):233-256.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  41. Peter Carruthers (2002). The Cognitive Functions of Language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):657-674.
    This paper explores a variety of different versions of the thesis that natural language is involved in human thinking. It distinguishes amongst strong and weak forms of this thesis, dismissing some as implausibly strong and others as uninterestingly weak. Strong forms dismissed include the view that language is conceptually necessary for thought (endorsed by many philosophers) and the view that language is _de facto_ the medium of all human conceptual thinking (endorsed by many philosophers and social scientists). Weak forms include (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   45 citations  
  42.  28
    Robert L. Goldstone & David Landy (2010). Domain-Creating Constraints. Cognitive Science 34 (7):1357-1377.
    The contributions to this special issue on cognitive development collectively propose ways in which learning involves developing constraints that shape subsequent learning. A learning system must be constrained to learn efficiently, but some of these constraints are themselves learnable. To know how something will behave, a learner must know what kind of thing it is. Although this has led previous researchers to argue for domain-specific constraints that are tied to different kinds/domains, an exciting possibility is that kinds/domains themselves can be (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  43.  29
    William R. Brown (1995). The Domain Constraint on Analogy and Analogical Argument. Informal Logic 17 (1).
    Domain constraint, the requirement that analogues be selected from "the same category," inheres in the popular saying "you can't compare apples and oranges" and the textbook principle "the greater the number of shared properties, the stronger the argument from analogy." I identify roles of domains in biological, linguistic, and legal analogy, supporting the account of law with a computer word search of judicial decisions. I argue that the category treatments within these disciplines cannot be exported to general informal logic, where (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  44.  77
    José Díez, Kareem Khalifa & Bert Leuridan (2013). General Theories of Explanation: Buyer Beware. Synthese 190 (3):379-396.
    We argue that there is no general theory of explanation that spans the sciences, mathematics, and ethics, etc. More specifically, there is no good reason to believe that substantive and domain-invariant constraints on explanatory information exist. Using Nickel (Noûs 44(2):305–328, 2010 ) as an exemplar of the contrary, generalist position, we first show that Nickel’s arguments rest on several ambiguities, and then show that even when these ambiguities are charitably corrected, Nickel’s defense of general theories of explanation is inadequate along (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  22
    Erich Rast (2013). On Contextual Domain Restriction in Categorial Grammar. Synthese 190 (12):2085-2115.
    Abstract -/- Quantifier domain restriction (QDR) and two versions of nominal restriction (NR) are implemented as restrictions that depend on a previously introduced interpreter and interpretation time in a two-dimensional semantic framework on the basis of simple type theory and categorial grammar. Against Stanley (2002) it is argued that a suitable version of QDR can deal with superlatives like tallest. However, it is shown that NR is needed to account for utterances when the speaker intends to convey different restrictions for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. Sven Nyholm (2015). Motivation-Enhancements and Domain-Specific Values. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 6 (1):37-39.
    Recent research suggests that “smart drugs” don’t make healthy individuals who use them smarter. The main effects are instead on levels of motivation and interest. So the main ethical question here is not whether there is anything wrong or regrettable about healthy individuals’ using these drugs to make themselves smarter. It is rather whether there is anything problematic about their using these drugs to control or modulate their levels of motivation and interest. This question can either be discussed on a (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  4
    Darius Sauliūnas (2011). Domain Name Disputes in Lithuanian Courts: Silent Steps Towards Fairness on the Net. Jurisprudence 18 (3):943-961.
    National <.lt> domain name disputes in Lithuania are the ones which courts must decide without having any specific legal regulation. In such cases courts shall apply analogy of law, customs and general principals of law. Last but not least, the courts must address international legal practice as regards the domain name disputes, i.e. take into account the famous ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy adopted in 1999 and mostly applied by the panels of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre while (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  83
    Vincent Lam & Michael Esfeld (2012). The Structural Metaphysics of Quantum Theory and General Relativity. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 43 (2):243-258.
    The paper compares ontic structural realism in quantum physics with ontic structural realism about space–time. We contend that both quantum theory and general relativity theory support a common, contentful metaphysics of ontic structural realism. After recalling the main claim of ontic structural realism and its physical support, we point out that both in the domain of quantum theory and in the domain of general relativity theory, there are objects whose essential ways of being are certain relations so that these objects (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  49.  13
    Annette Karmiloff-Smith (1994). Précis of Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4):693.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   23 citations  
  50. Theodore Bach (2014). A Unified Account of General Learning Mechanisms and Theory‐of‐Mind Development. Mind and Language 29 (3):351-381.
    Modularity theorists have challenged that there are, or could be, general learning mechanisms that explain theory-of-mind development. In response, supporters of the ‘scientific theory-theory’ account of theory-of-mind development have appealed to children's use of auxiliary hypotheses and probabilistic causal modeling. This article argues that these general learning mechanisms are not sufficient to meet the modularist's challenge. The article then explores an alternative domain-general learning mechanism by proposing that children grasp the concept belief through the progressive alignment of relational structure (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000