Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
    Psychol Rev. 2010 Jan;117(1):300-6; discussion 289-90, 297-9, 306-8.

    More on grandmother cells and the biological implausibility of PDP models of cognition: a reply to Plaut and McClelland (2010) and Quian Quiroga and Kreiman (2010).

    Source

    Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12A Prior Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8-ITU, England. j.bowers@bris.ac.uk

    Abstract

    Replies to the comments by Plaut and McClelland and Quian Quiroga and Kreiman on the authors original article both challenged my characterization of localist and distributed representations. They also challenged the biological plausibility of grandmother cells on conceptual and empirical grounds. This reply addresses these issues in turn. The premise of my argument is that grandmother cells in neuroscience are the equivalent of localist representations in psychology. When defined in this way, grandmother cells are biologically plausible, given the neuroscience to date. By contrast, the neurophysiology is shown to be inconsistent with the distributed representations often learned in existing parallel distributed processing (PDP) models, and it poses a challenge to PDP theories more generally.

    PMID:
    20063980
    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

      Supplemental Content

      Click here to read

      Recent activity

      Your browsing activity is empty.

      Activity recording is turned off.

      Turn recording back on

      See more...
      Write to the Help Desk