Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:46:50.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reply to reviewers: Reuse, embodied interactivity, and the emerging paradigm shift in the human neurosciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2016

Michael L. Anderson
Michael L. Anderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA 17604-3003. michael.anderson@fandm.eduhttp://www.fandm.edu/michael-anderson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this reply to reviewers, I argue that, although reforming the taxonomy of psychology will lead to great insights in the cognitive sciences, it will not result in 1:1 structure-function mappings in the brain; we should expect to see a great deal of irreducible functional diversity in the brain at multiple spatial scales. I further clarify both the promise and the limitations of the analytic techniques for capturing functional diversity and interrogating the taxonomy of psychology; describe the ways in which neural reuse can help us understand human development; further explore the ways in which my proposals for integrating psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology differ from the approach exemplified by contemporary evolutionary psychology; and lay out some new and hopefully interesting avenues for future research.

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, M. L. (2010) Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(4):245–66. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000853.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2014) After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. L. (2015) Beyond componential constitution in the brain: Starburst amacrine cells and enabling constraints. In: Open MIND, ed. Metzinger, T. K. & Windt, J. M.. MIND Group. doi: 10.15502/9783958570429.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. L. & Chemero, T. (2013) The problem with brain GUTs: Conflation of different senses of “prediction” threatens metaphysical disaster. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3):204–205.Google Scholar
Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., Prinz, W. & Knoblich, G. (2008) Action co-representation: The joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience 3(3–4):410–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, L. F. & Bar, M. (2009) See it with feeling: Affective predictions during object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 364(1521):1325–34.Google Scholar
Cisek, P. (2007) Cortical mechanisms of action selection: The affordance competition hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362(1485):1585–99.Google Scholar
Cisek, P. & Kalaska, J. F. (2010) Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience 33:269–98.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2013b) Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3):181–204. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12000477.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. & Bower, M. (2014) Making enactivism even more embodied. AVANT. Pismo Awangardy Filozoficzno-Naukowej 2:232–47.Google Scholar
Gładziejewski, P. (2016) Predictive coding and representationalism. Synthese 193(2):559–82. doi: 10.1007/s11229-015-0762-9.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. & Kaschak, M. P. (2002) Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(3):558–65.Google Scholar
Hohwy, J. (2013) The predictive mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaschak, M. P. & Glenberg, A. M. (2000) Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 43(3):508–29.Google Scholar
Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J. & Schmidt, R. C. (2009) Social connection through joint action and interpersonal coordination. Topics in Cognitive Science 1(2):320–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penner-Wilger, M. & Anderson, M. L. (2013) The relation between finger gnosis and mathematical ability: Why redeployment of neural circuits best explains the finding. Frontiers in Psychology 4. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00877.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, D. C. & Dale, R. (2005) Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers' and listeners' eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science 29(6):1045–60.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L. & Baron, R. M. (2007) Judging and actualizing intrapersonal and interpersonal affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 33(4):845.Google ScholarPubMed
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H. & Knoblich, G. (2006) Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(2):70–76.Google Scholar
Seth, A. K. (2015) The cybernetic Bayesian brain – From interoceptive inference to sensorimotor contingencies. In: Open MIND: 35(T), ed. Metzinger, T. & Windt, J. M.. MIND Group. doi: 10.15502/9783958570108.Google Scholar
Snow, J. C., Pettypiece, C. E., McAdam, T. D., McLean, A. D., Stroman, P. W., Goodale, M. A. & Culham, J. C. (2011) Bringing the real world into the fMRI scanner: Repetition effects for pictures versus real objects. Scientific Reports 1:130. doi: 10.1038/srep00130.Google Scholar
Sporns, O. (2011) Networks of the brain. MIT Press.Google Scholar