Physiological evidence predicts a model of concept categorisation that evolves through direct interaction with object feature selection. The requirement stated by Schyns et al. for feature plasticity is supported, but important caveats raise a question about the level at which feature identification can occur. Visual attribute selection for feature creation is likely to be directed by top-down and attentional processes.
It is worth considering whether particular behavioral measures from observers are ever consciously transformed a priori so as to render inferences about them indistinguishable. This is unlikely, but recent experiments indicating color sensitivity and selectivity without visual awareness suggest that the distinction between what can and cannot be explained about color experience using behavioral responses may not be as obvious as Palmer concluded.
Failure to take note of distinctive attributes in the distal stimulus leads to an inadequate proximal encoding. Representation of similarities in Chorus suffers in this regard. Distinctive qualities may require additional complex representation (e.g., reference to linguistic terms) in order to facilitate discrimination. Additional semantic information, which configures proximal attributes, permits accurate identification of true veridical stimuli.
The locality assumption (LA) seems rather awkward, especially when one considers centres of neuronal specialisation as defined by observed CNS activity. It is clear from electrophysiology that extra-striate functional compartmentalisation (modularity) is rather less well-defined than first thought; neuropsychological assessment attaching significance to varieties of preserved behaviour also reveals that some basic flaws must be inherent in current reasoning supporting LA.