Did residual normality ever have a chance?

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):759-760 (2002)
Thomas & Karmiloff- Smith show that the assumption of residual normality does not hold in connectionist simulations, and argue that RN has been inappropriately applied to childhood disorders. We agree. However, we suggest that the RN hypothesis may never have been fully viable, either empirically or computationally
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0140525X02310136
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 32,696
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
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.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
7 ( #595,069 of 2,237,301 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #443,086 of 2,237,301 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature