Thelen et al. criticize “spatial coding” approaches to the A-not-B error. However, newer thinking about spatial coding provides more precise analytic categories and recognizes that different spatial coding systems normally coexist. Theorizing about spatial coding is largely compatible with dynamic-systems theory, augmenting it with an analysis of what one means when discussing “location at A” (or B).

Baumard and colleagues put forward a new hypothesis about the nature and evolution of fairness. In this commentary, we discuss the relation between morality and their views about fairness.

The generalizability crisis is compounded, or even partially caused, by a lack of specificity in psychological theories. Expanding the use of mechanistic models among psychologists is therefore important, but faces numerous hurdles. A cultural evolutionary approach can help guide and evaluate interventions to improve modeling efforts in psychology, such as developing standards and implementing them at the institutional level.

We are consciously aware of visual objects together with the minute details that characterize each object. Those details are perceived instantaneously and in parallel. V1 is the only visual area with spatial resolution and topographical exactitude matching perceptual abilities. For cognition to penetrate perception, it needs to affect V1 image representation. That is unlikely because of the detailed parallel V1 organization and the nature of top-down connections, which can influence only large parts of the visual field.

In sum, dichotic listening tasks are appropriate for testing whether perception requires attention. The separate issue of the possible presence of perception that can never be brought under the spotlight of awareness should indeed be investigated by paradigms such as masking. However, the ultimate criterion for availability to awareness must be phenomenal experience. The discrepancy between thresholds of different perceptual indices is an important empirical finding, but its theoretical interpretation is not straightforward. In addition, it is suggested that we worry about the possibility that so-called indirect evidence reflects side effects of perceptual processing rather than the contents of its final product. In that case, what are being observed are vestiges of the processing of stimuli that do not make it to awareness. Whether those stimuli are below the threshold for overt response is an open question.

The target articles in this volume address the three major questions about dreaming that have been most responsible for the delay in progress in this field over the past 25 years. These are: (1) Where in the brain is dreaming produced, given that dream reports can be elicited from sleep stages other than REM? (2) Do dream plots have any intrinsic meaning? (3) Does dreaming serve some specialized function? The answers offered here when added together support a new model of dreaming that is testable, and should revitalize this area of study.

[Hobson et al.; Nielsen; Revonsuo; Solms; Vertes & Eastman]

This commentary advances the hypothesis that differences between liberal and conservative orientations noted in the target article are emotional in nature and caused by differences in attachment security: Conservatives are more vigilant to negative features of the environment because of a general sense of insecurity, whereas liberals are relatively more secure.

We argue that prioritization, simultaneity, and mutual exclusion are mind-body integration functions that can't be addressed meaningfully at the psychological (computational) level alone. We describe the outlook for an integration between Kurzban et al.'s profound discussion of opportunity cost/benefit prioritization and decades of related development in biofunctional science.

A lower tendency to influence and be influenced by their social environment seems almost self-evident in autism. However, a closer look at differences and similarities between autistic and non-autistic individuals suggests that some basic mechanisms involved in social influence might be intact in autism, whereas atypical responses point to differences in more sophisticated recursive social strategies, such as reputation management.

Posner & Raichle's (1994) exciting, wonderfully illustrated book describes the past successes and future potential of the relatively noninvasive imaging of the nervous systems of living people. The focus has been on cognitive processes but there is no reason why emotional and motivational systems cannot also be tapped. Although the authors do not formally address such contentious issues as consciousness and the private experience of other species, imaging methods may hold promise for helping us to understand these phenomena, as well as to integrate psychological processes into ethological and phylogenetic research in general.

A well-recognized framework for modeling human intelligence centers around Spearman's g, a common central factor accounting for individual differences in cognitive performance across a variety of complex tasks (Spearman 1904). The neural basis of g may be better characterized by posterior-frontal integration, rather than parietal, which may be just one of many posterior regions that are controlled by the prefrontal cortex (PFC).

In response to Cohen, we point out that many of the assessment difficulties raised by the correspondence metaphor stem from the assessment of memory in meaningful, real-life contexts rather than from the assessment of memory accuracy per se; these difficulties are equally troublesome for the assessment of memory quantity in such contexts. Moreover, the need to focus on particular aspects of memory performance – correspondence-oriented or quantity-oriented – does not preclude the development of useful and general theoretical models. In response to Shanon, we argue that (1) the distinction between the correspondence and storehouse metaphors of memory is metatheoretical, not substantive or methodological, (2) the correspondence metaphor is compatible with both a “representationalist” view of memory and a more “direct” view, and (3) as an epistemological strategy, metaphorical pluralism is both acceptable and desirable.

As presently implemented, the neuron doctrine (ND) portrays the brain's neurons and chemical synapses as fundamental components in a computer-like switching circuit, supporting a view of brain = mind = computer. However, close examination reveals individual neurons to be far more complex than simple switches, with enormous capacity for intracellular information processing (e.g., in the internal cytoskeleton). Other poorly appreciated factors (gap junctions, apparent randomness, dendritic-dendritic processing, possible quantum computation, the living state) also suggest that the ND grossly oversimplifies neuronal functions. In the quest to understand consciousness, the presently implemented ND may throw out the baby with the bath water.

Carpendale & Lewis (C&L) propose that social knowledge is constructed from triadic interactions. This account generates testable predictions concerning social knowledge in infancy. Current evidence is not entirely consistent with these predictions. Infants possess action knowledge before they engage in triadic interactions, and triadic use of an action does not always precede knowledge about the action.

Human life history incorporates childhood, a lengthy post-weaning period of dependency. This species-specific period provides an opportunity for extensive learning and for sophisticated cultural behaviors to develop, including crucial tool use skills. Although I agree that no individual cognitive trait singularly differentiates humans from other animals, I suggest here that without childhood, the traits that are key to human tool use would not emerge.

Culture contextualizes the contents and intentionality of many mental statuses. Cognitive mediation of cultural information shapes these contents and intentionalities, as well as many of the false beliefs of pathology. Flexibility of cognitive mediation processes and resulting beliefs and pathologies may vary by individual, be a key mechanism of the feedback loop, and help characterize network connections.