How to Hit Scylla Without Avoiding Charybdis: Comment on Perruchet, Tyler, Galland, and Peereman (2004)

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


L. L. Bonatti, M. Peña, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (2006) argued that P. Perruchet, M. D. Tyler, N. Galland, and R. Peereman (2004) confused the notions of segmentation and generalization by ignoring the evidence for generalization in M. Peña, L. L. Bonatti, M. Nespor, and J. Mehler (2002). In this reply, the authors reformulate and complement their initial arguments, showing that their way of dealing with segmentation and generalization is not due to confusion or ignorance but rather to the fact that the tests used in Peña et al. make it likely that neither segmentation nor generalization were captured in their experiments. Finally, the authors address the challenge posed by Pena et al. of accounting for the whole pattern of their results without invoking rule-based, algebraic-like computations.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles