Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:12:50.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Did Residual Normality ever have a chance?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2003

Susan C. Levine ,
Terry Regier  and
Tracy L. Solomon
Susan C. Levine
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 s-levine@uchicago.edut-regier@uchicago.edutsolomon@uchicago.edu http://www.eci.uchicago.edu/faculty/S_Levine.html http://www.psych.uchicago.edu/~regier
Terry Regier
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 s-levine@uchicago.edut-regier@uchicago.edutsolomon@uchicago.edu http://www.eci.uchicago.edu/faculty/S_Levine.html http://www.psych.uchicago.edu/~regier
Tracy L. Solomon
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 s-levine@uchicago.edut-regier@uchicago.edutsolomon@uchicago.edu http://www.eci.uchicago.edu/faculty/S_Levine.html http://www.psych.uchicago.edu/~regier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith (T&K-S) show that the assumption of residual normality (RN) 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.

Type
Brief Report
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , December 2002 , pp. 759 - 760
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

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.)