Right brain-damaged patients with unilateral neglect, who ignore left-sided visual events, may also omit left-sided details when describing known places from memory. Modulating the orienting of visual attention may ameliorate imaginal neglect. A first step toward explaining these phenomena might be to postulate that space-related imagery is a cognitive activity involving attentional and intentional aspects.

Stanovich & West continue a history of norm-setting that began with deference to reasonable people's opinions, followed by adherence to probability theorems. They return to deference to reasonable people, with aptitude test performance substituting for reasonableness. This allows them to select independently among competing theories, but defines reasoning circularly in terms of aptitude, while aptitude is measured using reasoning.

Curiosity and creativity are central pillars of human growth and invention. Although they have been studied extensively in isolation, the relationship between them has not yet been established. We propose that both curiosity and creativity emanate from the same mechanism of novelty seeking. We first present a synthesis showing that curiosity and creativity are affected similarly by a number of key cognitive faculties such as memory, cognitive control, attention, and reward. We then review empirical evidence from neuroscience research, indicating that the same brain regions are involved in both curiosity and creativity, focusing on the interplay between three major brain networks: the default mode network, the salience network, and the executive control network. After substantiating the link between curiosity and creativity, we propose a novelty-seeking model (NSM) that underlies them and suggests that the manifestation of the NSM is governed by one's state of mind.

Critics of the target article objected to our account of art appreciators' sensitivity to art-historical contexts and functions, the relations among the modes of artistic appreciation, and the weaknesses of aesthetic science. To rebut these objections and justify our program, we argue that the current neglect of sensitivity to art-historical contexts persists as a result of a pervasive aesthetic–artistic confound; we further specify our claim that basic exposure and the design stance are necessary conditions of artistic understanding; and we explain why many experimental studies do not belong to a psycho-historical science of art.

Kalisch et al. propose a positive appraisal style as the key mechanism that underlies resilience. The present authors suggest that flexibility in emotion processing is more conducive to resilience than a general positivity bias. People may achieve emotional flexibility through counter-regulation – a dynamic processing bias toward positive stimuli in negative contexts and negative stimuli in positive contexts.

Oaksford & Chater (O&C) have rejected logic in favor of probability theory for reasons that are irrelevant to mental-logic theory, because mental-logic theory differs from standard logic in significant ways. Similar to O&C, mental-logic theory rejects the use of the material conditional and deals with the completeness problem by limiting the scope of its procedures to local sets of propositions.

Cowan assumes that chunk-based capacity limits are synonymous with the essence of a “specialized STM mechanism.” In a single experiment, we measured the capacity, or span, of long-term memory and found that it, too, corresponds roughly to the magical number 4. The results imply that a chunk-based capacity limit is not a signature characteristic of remembering over the short-term.

We dispute Henrich et al.'s analysis of cultural differences at the level of a narrow behavioral-expression for assessing a universalist argument. When Researchers Overlook uNderlying Genotypes (WRONG), they fail to detect universal processes that generate observed differences in expression. We reify this position with our own cross-cultural research on self-enhancement and self-esteem.

This commentary reinterprets our recent data on the cerebellar contribution to different cognitive functions in light of Braitenberg and coworkers's hypothesis about the sequence-in/sequence-out cerebellar mode of operation in the motor domain. Cerebellar involvement in spatial data processing, procedural learning, verbal fluency, application of grammatical rules, and writing is dependent on sequence processing.

The GANE (glutamate amplifies noradrenergic effects) model proposes that local glutamate–norepinephrine interactions enable “winner-take-more” effects in perception and memory under arousal. A diverse range of commentaries addressed both the nature of this “hotspot” feedback mechanism and its implications in a variety of psychological domains, inspiring exciting avenues for future research.

Firestone & Scholl (F&S) bracket many attentional effects as “peripheral,” altering the inputs to a cognitive process without altering the processing itself. By way of contrast, I highlight an emerging class of neurocomputational models that imply profound, pervasive, nonperipheral influences of attention on perception. This transforms the landscape for empirical debates concerning possible top-down effects on perception.

I suggest that neurophysiological data, usually interpreted in cognitivist terms, is actually more supportive of dynamic frameworks such as that of Thelen et al. I outline a model of embodied action used to interpret neural data from frontal and parietal cortex, and suggest that it bears strong similarity to the framework described in the target article.