No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Weak evidence for a strong case against modularity in developmental disorders
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 August 2003
Abstract
Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith (T&K-S) provide evidence from computational modeling against modular assumptions of “Residual Normality” (RN) in developmental disorders. Even though I agree with their criticism, I find their choice of empirical evidence disappointing. Cognitive neuroscience cannot as yet provide a complete understanding of most developmental disorders, but what is known is more than enough to debunk the idea of RN.
- Type
- Brief Report
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2002 Cambridge University Press