The hypothesis that highly overlapping networks underlie brain functions (neural reuse) is decisively supported by three decades of multisensory research. Multisensory areas process information from more than one sensory modality and therefore represent the best examples of neural reuse. Recent evidence of multisensory processing in primary visual cortices further indicates that neural reuse is a basic feature of the brain.

Niedenthal et al. discuss the importance of eye gaze in embodied simulation and, more globally, in the processing of emotional visual stimulation (such as facial expression). In this commentary, we illustrate the relationship between oriented eye movements, consciousness, and emotion by using the case of severely brain-injured patients recovering from coma (i.e., vegetative and minimally conscious patients).

In Plamondon & Alimi's target article, a bell-shaped velocity profile typically observed in fast movements is used as a basis for the “kinematic theory” of motor control. In our opinion, kinematics is a necessary but insufficient ground for a theory of motor control. Relationships between different kinematic characteristics are an emergent property of the system dynamics controlled by the brain in a specific way. In particular, bell-shaped velocity profiles with or without additional waves are a trivial consequence of shifts in the equilibrium state of the system as suggested, for example, in the λ-model of motor control.

Heyes's claim that the only unequivocal evidence of motor imitation comes from rats and budgerigars is contested. It is suggested that the rats' behavior can be explained by emulation and the budgerigars' by response facilitation. Behavioral matching in chimpanzees (Custance et al. 1995; Whiten et al. 1996) is reconsidered and interpreted in terms of imitation.

In examining the utility of the action view advanced in the Pickering & Garrod (P&G) target article, I first consider its contribution to the analysis of language vis-à-vis earlier language-as-action approaches. Second, I assess the relation between coordinated joint action, which serves as a blueprint for dialogue coordination, and the experience of shared reality, a key concomitant and product of interpersonal communication.

Glover's planning–control model accommodates a substantial number of findings from subjects who have motor deficits as a consequence of brain lesions. A number of consistently observed and robust findings are not, however, explained by Glover's theory; additionally, the claim that the IPL supports planning whereas the SPL supports control is not consistently supported in the literature.

Analogy plays an important role in the production of irregular forms but the proposed Minimalist Morphology (MM) representations do not express this. Recent results also show that the regular forms of strong paradigms can have idiosyncratic properties that cannot be accounted for by MM. Methodological problems with an experiment are discussed and a plea for a processing explanation is made.

Researchers studying primate brain allometry often focus on departures from allometry more than the allometric relationships themselves because only the former reveal what brain regions and behavioral-cognitive abilities were the focus of selection. Allometric departures for the human brain provide insights into hominid brain evolution and cast doubt on the suggestion that the large human cerebral cortex is a “spandrel.”

During the paradoxical dreaming sleep stage, characterized by hallucinations and delusions, as in schizophrenia, the increased subcortical release of dopamine, the presynaptic inhibition of thalamic relay nuclei, and serotonergic disinhibition are in accordance with the model for the mechanism of hallucination-induction.

Vaesen asks whether goal maintenance and planning ahead are critical for innovative tool use. We suggest that these aptitudes may have an evolutionary foundation in motor planning abilities that span all primate species. Anticipatory effects evidenced in the reaching behaviors of lemurs, tamarins, and rhesus monkeys similarly bear on the evolutionary origins of foresight as it pertains to tool use.

Knobe's argument rests on a way of distinguishing performance errors from the competencies that delimit our cognitive architecture. We argue that other sorts of evidence than those that he appeals to are needed to illuminate the boundaries of our folk capacities in ways that would support his conclusions.