Cooper, Richard P. and Shallice, T. (2006) Structured representations in the control of behavior cannot be so easily dismissed: a reply to Botvinick and Plaut (2006). Psychological Review 113 (4), pp. 929-931. ISSN 0033-295X.
![[img]](https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text
CooperShallice2006b.pdf - Published Version of Record Restricted to Repository staff only Download (34kB) | Request a copy |
Abstract
M. Botvinick and D. C. Plaut (2006) argued that many of the criticisms of their earlier simple recurrent network (SRN) model of routine sequential action raised by R. P. Cooper and T. Shallice (2006) were criticisms of the specific implementation rather than criticisms of the underlying theory. Cooper and Shallice (2006) reject this assessment and raise concerns with several implementational adjustments that Botvinick and Plaut made to address their criticisms of the SRN account. Moreover, Botvinick and Plaut are questioned for not addressing potential interactions between their suggested implementational changes. Cooper and Shallice also reconsider the implications of the role of the training set in shaping the SRN model’s normal and error-prone behavior, the role of goals in their original interactive activation network model and routine behavior more generally, and the relation between the putative routine and nonroutine action control systems within the 2 models.
Metadata
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Keyword(s) / Subject(s): | routine action, action schema, goals, simple recurrent network, interactive activation network |
| School: | Birkbeck Faculties and Schools > Faculty of Science > School of Psychological Sciences |
| Depositing User: | Rick Cooper |
| Date Deposited: | 28 May 2013 09:02 |
| Last Modified: | 02 Aug 2023 17:03 |
| URI: | https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/id/eprint/6779 |
Statistics
Additional statistics are available via IRStats2.
Archive Staff Only (login required)
