Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):754-755 (2002)

Abstract
Thomas & Karmiloff- Smith correctly identify Residual Normality as a critical assumption of some theorising about mental structure within developmental psychology. However, their simulations provide only weak support for the conditions under which RN may occur because they explore closely related architectures that share a learning algorithm. It is suggested that more work is required to establish the limits of RN
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x0225013x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,849
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Did Residual Normality Ever Have a Chance?Susan C. Levine, Terry Regier & Tracy L. Solomon - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):759-760.
The Beauty of Models for Developmental Disorders.J. Briscoe - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):750-752.
Residual Normality: Friend or Foe?Michael Thomas & Annette Karmiloff-Smith - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):772-780.
Evidence for a Domain-Specific Deficit in Developmental Dyslexia.Franck Ramus - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):767-768.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
33 ( #317,760 of 2,426,097 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #543,466 of 2,426,097 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes