Publication Date
| In 2025 | 0 |
| Since 2024 | 0 |
| Since 2021 (last 5 years) | 0 |
| Since 2016 (last 10 years) | 0 |
| Since 2006 (last 20 years) | 2 |
Descriptor
| Brain | 3 |
| Experimental Psychology | 3 |
| Semantics | 3 |
| Dementia | 2 |
| Models | 2 |
| Artificial Intelligence | 1 |
| Cognitive Processes | 1 |
| Cognitive Science | 1 |
| Comprehension | 1 |
| Computers | 1 |
| Intention | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Author
| Coltheart, Max | 1 |
| Lambon Ralph, Matthew A. | 1 |
| Overskeid, Geir | 1 |
| Patterson, Karalyn | 1 |
| Plaut, David C. | 1 |
| Saunders, Steven J. | 1 |
| Tree, Jeremy J. | 1 |
| Woollams, Anna M. | 1 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 3 |
| Opinion Papers | 3 |
| Information Analyses | 1 |
Education Level
Audience
Location
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Direct linkColtheart, Max; Tree, Jeremy J.; Saunders, Steven J. – Psychological Review, 2010
The current authors reply to a response by Woollams, Lambon Ralph, Plaut, and Patterson on a comment by the current authors on the original article. The current authors list their agreements and disagreements with Woollams, Lambon Ralph, Plaut, and Patterson's response on the topics of the human reading system, cognitive architecture, experimental…
Descriptors: Dementia, Semantics, Cognitive Science, Neurological Organization
Woollams, Anna M.; Lambon Ralph, Matthew A.; Plaut, David C.; Patterson, Karalyn – Psychological Review, 2010
The current authors reply to a postscript by Coltheart, Tree, and Saunders which was in response to the current authors response on a comment by the current authors on the original article. The current authors begin by responding to the final challenge posed by Coltheart, Tree, and Saunders (2010). They believe that both experimental and…
Descriptors: Experimental Psychology, Brain, Cognitive Processes, Simulation
Peer reviewedOverskeid, Geir – Psychological Record, 2005
The many authors debating whether computers can understand often fail to clarify what understanding is, and no agreement exists on this important issue. In his Chinese room argument, Searle (1980) claims that computers running formal programs can never understand. I discuss Searle's claim based on a definition of understanding that is empirical,…
Descriptors: Brain, Experimental Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, Comprehension
