Blinded by Biology: Bio-inspired Tech-Ontologies in Cognitive Brain Sciences

2019 ◽  
pp. 58-69
Author(s):  
Paola Hernández-Chávez
Keyword(s):  
Brain Sciences

Philosophy and the Brain Sciences: Confrontation or Merger?

1980 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 1008-1009
Author(s):  
DAVID L. WILSON
Keyword(s):  
Brain Sciences ◽  
The Brain

scholarly journals Acknowledgment to Reviewers of Brain Sciences in 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 138
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Brain Sciences

Peer review is the driving force of journal development, and reviewers are gatekeepers who ensure that Brain Sciences maintains its standards for the high quality of its published papers [...]

Usage-based linguistics and the magic number four

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarence Green
Keyword(s):  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Magic Number ◽  
Cognitive Domain ◽  
Psychological Review ◽  
Magical Number ◽  
Brain Sciences ◽  
Intonation Units ◽  
Processing Information ◽  
Multiple Languages ◽  
Linguistic Structures

AbstractMiller’s (1956, The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2). 81–97) working memory (WM) capacity of around seven items, plus or minus two, was never found by usage-based linguists to be a recurrent pattern in language. Thus, it has not figured prominently in cognitive models of grammar. Upon reflection, this is somewhat unusual, since WM has been considered a fundamental cognitive domain for information processing in psychology, so one might have reasonably expected properties such as capacity constraints to be reflected in language use and structures derived from use. This paper proposes that Miller’s (1956) number has not been particularly productive in usage-based linguistics because it turns out to have been an overestimate. A revised WM capacity has now superseded it within cognitive science, a “magic number four plus or minus one” (Cowan 2001, The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24(1). 87–185). This paper suggests, drawing on evidence from spoken language corpora and multiple languages, that a range of linguistic structures and patterns align with this revised capacity estimate, unlike Miller’s (1956), ranging from phrasal verbs, idioms, n-grams, the lengths of intonation units and some abstract grammatical properties of phrasal categories and clause structure.

scholarly journals Construct Stabilization and the Unity of the Mind-Brain Sciences

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (5) ◽  
pp. 662-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Anne Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Brain Sciences ◽  
The Mind

scholarly journals The ‘naturalistic’ fallacy: Leveraging the power of media to drive cognition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Grall ◽  
Emily S. Finn
Keyword(s):  
Practical Knowledge ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Stimulus Selection ◽  
Brain Sciences ◽  
Affective Psychology ◽  
History Of ◽  
Media Research ◽  
The Rich ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Rich History

So-called “naturalistic” stimuli have risen in popularity in cognitive, social, and affective psychology and neuroscience over the last 15 years. However, a critical property of these stimuli is frequently overlooked: Media—like film, television, books, and podcasts—are fundamentally not natural. They are deliberately crafted products meant to elicit particular human thought, emotion, and behavior. Given the rich history of scholarship on media as an art and science, subsuming media stimuli under the term “naturalistic” in psychological and brain sciences is inaccurate and obfuscates the advantages that media stimuli offer because they are artificial. Here, we argue for a more informed approach to adopting media stimuli in naturalistic paradigms. We empirically review how researchers currently describe and justify their choice of stimuli for a given experiment and present strategies to improve rigor in the stimulus selection process. We assert that experiencing media should be considered a task akin to any other experimental task(s), and explain how this shift in perspective will compel more nuanced and generalizable research using these stimuli. Throughout, we offer theoretical and practical knowledge from multidisciplinary media research to raise the standard for the treatment of media stimuli in psychological and neuroscientific research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document