The target article offers an intriguing hypothesis relating the content of phenomenal experience to a qualitative characteristic of information processing. This hypothesis, however, offers only an explanation of the “what” of consciousness, not the “who” – the experiencing agent remains mysterious. Their hypothesis about the unity of consciousness can be linked to an informational account of the agency or subjectivity of consciousness.

In several recent experiments we have found that the eyes are often captured by the appearance of a sudden onset in a display, even though subjects intend to move their eyes elsewhere. Very brief fixations are made on the abrupt onset before the eyes complete their intended movement to the previously defined target. These results indicate concurrent programming of a voluntary saccade to the defined saccade target and an involuntary saccade to the sudden onset. This is inconsistent with the idea that a single salience map determines the location of a saccade in a winner-take-all fashion. Other results indicate that subjects attend to more than one location in a display during saccade preparation, contrary to the claim that covert attentional scanning plays no role in saccade generation.

ERP studies have shown modulation of activation in left frontal and posterior cortical language areas, as well as recruitment of right hemisphere homologues, based on task demands. Furthermore, blood-flow studies have demonstrated changes in the neural circuitry of word processing based on experience. The neural areas and time course of language processing are plastic depending on task demands and experience.

Clahsen's experimental data from generalization, frequency, and priming fail to support and even conflict with those aspects of his dual-route account that distinguish it from schema theories.

Aggleton & Brown (A&B) propose that the hippocampal-anterior thalamic and perirhinal-medial dorsal thalamic systems play independent roles in episodic memory, with the hippocampus supporting recollection-based memory and the perirhinal cortex, recognition memory. In this commentary we discuss whether there is experimental support for the A&B model from studies of long-term memory in semantic dementia.

My focus is on the inability of neuron doctrines to provide an explanatory context for aspects of consciousness that give rise to the mind–body and other minds problem(s). Neuroscience and related psychological sciences may be viewed as richly contributing to our taxonomic understanding of the mind and conditions underlying consciousness, without illuminating mind–body and other minds perplexities.

Experiments on memory-retrieval dynamics support the hypothesis that different mechanisms mediate processes of familiarity and recall (recollection). The minimal retrieval time for accurate recognition and frequency judgments is about 100 msec earlier than the minimal time to judge details such as modality or location. The difference is consistent with neurophysiological evidence. Retrieval dynamics data are also relevant to other aspects of Aggleton & Brown's target article.

Pulvermüller's account of lexical representation has implications for visual word recognition, given the claim we make that a foveally presented word is precisely split and contralaterally projected to the two hemispheres, and that this splitting conditions the whole process of visual word recognition. This elaboration of Pulvermüller's account raises issues of hemispheric differences and collaboration.

Analogy plays an important role in the production of irregular forms but the proposed Minimalist Morphology (MM) representations do not express this. Recent results also show that the regular forms of strong paradigms can have idiosyncratic properties that cannot be accounted for by MM. Methodological problems with an experiment are discussed and a plea for a processing explanation is made.

Models of saccade generation and visual selective attention must explain how and why particular targets are selected. Findlay & Walker do an excellent job of explaining the how of visual selection, but not the why. For a salience map to be more than a description of the relative importance of potential targets, there must be some account of the learning and inheritance that fashion its peaks and troughs. Point of gaze is not necessarily region of attention, and it may be premature to downgrade the role of covert attention in models of visual selection.

As presently implemented, the neuron doctrine (ND) portrays the brain's neurons and chemical synapses as fundamental components in a computer-like switching circuit, supporting a view of brain = mind = computer. However, close examination reveals individual neurons to be far more complex than simple switches, with enormous capacity for intracellular information processing (e.g., in the internal cytoskeleton). Other poorly appreciated factors (gap junctions, apparent randomness, dendritic-dendritic processing, possible quantum computation, the living state) also suggest that the ND grossly oversimplifies neuronal functions. In the quest to understand consciousness, the presently implemented ND may throw out the baby with the bath water.

The notion of an explicit representation plays a crucial role in O'Brien & Opie's arguments. Clarifying what explicit representation involves proves difficult, however, as various explications of this key notion fail to make sense of the overall argument. In particular, neither the notion of encoding in discrete objects nor the notion of active versus potentially active representation seems to help in specifying what is distinctive of conscious representation.

Some of the assumptions underlying the arguments in Aggleton & Brown's target article are reviewed; discrepancies/predictions are pointed out in relation to human lesion studies. A&B's proposal is interesting, but it may require harder, confirmatory evidence before it can be considered to be all-encompassing.

Pulvermüller restricts himself to an unnecessarily narrow range of evidence to support his claims. Evidence from neural modeling and behavioral experiments provides further support for an account of words encoded as transcortical cell assemblies. A cognitive neuroscience of language must include a range of methodologies (e.g., neural, computational, and behavioral) and will need to focus on the on-line processes of real-time language processing in more natural contexts.

Clahsen has added to the body of evidence that, on average, regular and irregular inflected words behave differently. However, the dual-mechanism account he supports predicts a crisp distinction; the empirical data instead suggest a fuzzy one, more in line with single-mechanism connectionist models.

O'Brien & Opie's theory of consciousness relies heavily on a distinction between explicit activation vectors and inexplicit weight vectors. But determining which representations are explicit vehicles requires appeal to process, and so their vehicle theory is in fact a process theory.

Gold & Stoljar's “trivial” neuron doctrine is neither a truism in cognitive science nor trivial; it has serious consequences for the future direction of the mind/brain sciences. Not everyone would agree that these consequences are desirable. The authors' “radical” doctrine is not so radical; their division between cognitive neuroscience and neurobiology is largely artificial. Indeed, there is no sharp distinction between cognitive neuroscience and other areas of the brain sciences.

We summarize several experiments indicating that the saccadic system is capable of simultaneously programming two movements toward different goals. This concurrent processing of saccades can lead to the execution of two saccades separated by an extremely short intersaccadic interval. This supports the idea of target competition proposed in Findlay & Walker's article, but suggests a greater degree of parallel processing. We provide evidence that concurrent processing of two saccades is not limited to higher-level planning subsystems; rather, it also involves both regions close enough to the motor output that it can systematically affect saccade trajectory.

Gold & Stoljar argue that there are two (often confused) neuron doctrines, one trivial and the other radical, with only the latter having the consequence that non-neuroscientific sciences of the mind will be discarded. They also attempt to show that there is no evidence supporting the radical doctrine. It is argued here that their dichotomy is artificial and misrepresents modern approaches to understanding the neuroscientific correlates of cognition and behavior.

Stability of activation, while it may be necessary for information to become available to consciousness, is not sufficient to produce phenomenal experience. We suggest that consciousness involves access to information and that access makes information symbolic. From this perspective, implicit representations exist, and are best thought of as subsymbolic. Crucially, such representations can be causally efficacious in the absence of consciousness.