The beauty of models for developmental disorders

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):750-752 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Cognitive frameworks provide important means for uniting concepts of specificity, cognition, and dynamic change in development. Two points are challenged by evidence from special populations: (1) that boundary constraints such as Residual Normality and a cognitive “endstate” compromise the use of cognitive models; and (2) the developmental process itself automatically rejects either Residual Normality or residual deviance from typical development.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,247

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Evidence for a domain-specific deficit in developmental dyslexia.Franck Ramus - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):767-768.
Residual normality: Friend or foe?Michael Thomas & Annette Karmiloff-Smith - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):772-780.
Did residual normality ever have a chance?Susan C. Levine, Terry Regier & Tracy L. Solomon - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):759-760.
Is relational complexity a useful metric for cognitive development?Usha Goswami - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):838-839.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
13 (#1,321,788)

6 months
6 (#858,075)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references