Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-5wl6q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T04:52:50.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feedback on feedback on feedback: It's feedforward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2000

Dennis Norris ,
James M. McQueen  and
Anne Cutler
Dennis Norris
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge, CB2 2EF, United [email protected] www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk
James M. McQueen
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics, 6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlandsjames.mcqueen; [email protected] www.mpi.nl
Anne Cutler
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics, 6525 XD Nijmegen, The Netherlandsjames.mcqueen; [email protected] www.mpi.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The central thesis of our target article is that feedback is never necessary in spoken word recognition. In this response we begin by clarifying some terminological issues that have led to a number of misunderstandings. We provide some new arguments that the feedforward model Merge is indeed more parsimonious than the interactive alternatives, and that it provides a more convincing account of the data than alternative models. Finally, we extend the arguments to deal with new issues raised by the commentators such as infant speech perception and neural architecture.

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 352 - 363
Copyright
© 2000 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.)