Structured representations in the control of behavior cannot be so easily dismissed: A reply to Botvinick and Plaut (2006)

摘要

M. Botvinick and D. C. Plant (2006) argued that many of the criticisms of their earlier simple recurrent network (SRN) model of routine sequential action raised by R. P. Cooper and T. Shallice (2006) were criticisms of the specific implementation rather than criticisms of the underlying theory. Cooper and Shallice (2006) reject this assessment and raise concerns with several implementational adjustments that Botvinick and Plant made to address their criticisms of the SRN account. Moreover, Botvinick and Plant are questioned for not addressing potential interactions between their suggested implementational changes. Cooper and Shallice also reconsider the implications of the role of the training set in shaping the SRN model's normal and error-prone behavior, the role of goals in their original interactive activation network model and routine behavior more generally, and the relation between the putative routine and nonroutine action control systems within the 2 models.