Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-07T03:14:57.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another artificial division – and the data don't support it

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2003

Martin Heil ,
Frank Rösler  and
Bettina Rolke
Martin Heil*
Affiliation:
Institute of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich-Heine-University, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany
Frank Rösler*
Affiliation:
Experimental and Biological Psychology, Philipps-University, 35032 Marburg, Germany
Bettina Rolke*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Eberhard-Karls-University, 72072 Tübingen, Germany
*
Martin.Heil@uni-duesseldorf.de
roesler@staff.uni-marburg.de
Bettina.Rolke@uni-tuebingen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Evidence for the contribution of the neocortex to memory is overwhelming. However, the theory proposed by Ruchkin et al. does not only ignore subcortical contributions, but also introduces an unnecessary and empirically unsupported division between the posterior cortex, assumed to represent information, and the prefrontal cortex, assumed to control activation. We argue instead that the representational power of the neocortex is not restricted to its posterior part.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 739 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004
Supplementary material: PDF

Download undefined(PDF)
PDF 923.2 KB