Whereas many researchers see a heuristic potential in the covert REM sleep model for explaining NREM sleep mentation and associated phenomena, many others are unconvinced of its value. At present, there is much circumstantial support for the model, but validation is lacking on many points. Supportive findings from several additional studies are summarized with results from two new studies showing (1) NREM mentation is correlated with duration of prior REM sleep, and (2) REM sleep signs (eye movements, phasic EMG) occur frequently in NREM sleep. The covert REM sleep model represents one class of explanatory models that combines the two assumptions of mind-body isomorphism and a 1-gen mentation generator; its future development will depend largely upon a more detailed understanding of sleep state interactions and their contribution to mind-body isomorphisms.

Clark makes a convincing case for the merits of conceptualizing brains as hierarchical prediction machines. This perspective has the potential to provide an elegant and powerful general theory of brain function, but it will ultimately stand or fall with evidence from basic neuroscience research. Here, we characterize the status quo of that evidence and highlight important avenues for future investigations.

We assert that one of the examples used by Keller & Miller (K&M), namely, autism, is indeed common, and heritable, but we question whether it is harmful. We provide a brief review of cognitive science literature in which autistics perform superiorly to non-autistics in perceptual, reasoning, and comprehension tasks; however, these superiorities are often occluded and are instead described as dysfunctions.

Forty-nine commentators have reviewed the theory that needs-based stresses and freedoms are shaped differently in threatening, comforting, and challenging climato-economic habitats. Their commentaries cover the white domain, where the theory does apply (e.g., happiness, collectivism, and democracy), the gray domain, where it may or may not apply (e.g., personality traits and creativity), and the black domain, where it does not apply (e.g., human intelligence and gendered culture). This response article provides clarifications, recommendations, and expectations.

The relationship between game play and naturalistic cooperation, generosity, or market involvement is ambiguous at best, making it difficult to link game results to preferences and beliefs guiding decision-making in daily life. Discounting reputation-based explanations because the games are anonymous, while arguing that game play is guided by motivational structures or framing effects reflecting daily life, is inconsistent.

The cellular basis of motor learning in the cerebellum has been attributed mostly to long-term depression (LTD) at excitatory parallel fiber (PF)-Purkinje cell (PC) synapses. LTD is induced when PFs are activated in conjunction with a climbing fiber (CF), the other excitatory input to PCs. Recently, by using whole-cell patch-clamp recording from PCs in cerebellar slices, a new form of synaptic plasticity was discovered. Stimulation of excitatory CFs induced a long-lasting (usually longer than 30 min) “rebound potentiation (RP)” of γ-amino-butyric acid A (GABAa)-receptor mediated inhibitory postsynaptic, currents (IPSCs). As in LTD, induction of RP requires transient elevation of intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca2+]1) due to activation of voltage-gated Ca2+ channels. Activity of inhibitory synapses seems also to be necessary for RP to occur. RP is mainly due to up-regulation of postsynaptic GABAa receptor function, since PC response to bath-applied exogenous GABA is also potentiated with a time course similar to RP. The difference in the time scale between the Ca2+ transients (10–30 sec) and the durations of RP (>30 min) strongly suggests that some intracellular biochemical machinery is involved. Pharmacological evidence suggests that protein kinases are involved in RP of inhibitory synapses and LTD of excitatory PF synapses. Besides the well-described LTD, RP could be a cellular mechanism that plays an important role in motor learning.

In determining the need to directly replicate, it is crucial to first verify the original results through independent reanalysis of the data. Original results that appear erroneous and that cannot be reproduced by reanalysis offer little evidence to begin with, thereby diminishing the need to replicate. Sharing data and scripts is essential to ensure reproducibility.

In our response, we clarify important theoretical differences between basic emotion and psychological construction approaches. We evaluate the empirical status of the basic emotion approach, addressing whether it requires brain localization, whether localization can be observed with better analytic tools, and whether evidence for basic emotions exists in other types of measures. We then revisit the issue of whether the key hypotheses of psychological construction are supported by our meta-analytic findings. We close by elaborating on commentator suggestions for future research.

We agree that human culture is unique. However, we also believe that an understanding of the evolution of culture requires a comparative approach. We offer examples of collaborative behaviors from dolphin play, and argue that consideration should be given to whether various forms of culture are best viewed as falling along a continuum or as discrete categories.

I claim that the increase in complexity in the (known) trace of Paleolithic stone tools can be parsimoniously explained by postulating the emergence of effective mechanisms for the social transmission of representations. I propose that Paleolithic tools, similar to more contemporary tools, were subject to a process of evolution by artificial selection based on functionality.

trust is a temporary attachment between humans that pervades our daily lives. recent research has shown that the affiliative hormone oxytocin rises with a social signal of interpersonal trust and is associated with trustworthy behavior (the reciprocation of trust). this commentary reports these results and relates them to the target article's findings for variations in affiliative-related behaviors.

The authors, on the basis of brief arguments, have dismissed tensor networks as a viable response to Jackendoff's challenges. However, there are reasons to believe that connectionist approaches descended from tensor networks are actually very well suited to answering Jackendoff's challenges. I rebut their arguments for dismissing tensor networks and briefly compare the approaches.