Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):57-69 (2004)

The views expressed in the commentaries challenge many of the tenets of the planning–control model as espoused in the target article. This response is aimed at addressing the most serious of these challenges as well as clarifying errors of interpretation. It is argued that the majority of the challenges from brain and behavior, although meritorious, can nonetheless be incorporated within the planning–control model. It is concluded that only some minor revision of the model with regard to anatomy is necessary at this time.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X04520022
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: 70,337
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Automaticity and Inhibition in Action Planning.Matthew R. Longo & Bennett I. Bertenthal - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):44-45.
Planning, Control, and the Illusion of Explanation.David A. Westwood - 2004 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (1):54-55.
Perception and Action Planning: Getting It Together.David A. Westwood & Melvyn A. Goodale - 2001 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (5):907-908.


Added to PP index

Total views
17 ( #636,484 of 2,508,110 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,711 of 2,508,110 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes