Mitchell et al. present a lucid and provocative challenge to the claim that links between mental representations are formed automatically. However, the propositional approach they offer requires clearer specification, especially with regard to how propositions and memories interact. A definition of a system would also clarify the debate, as might an alternative technique for assessing task “dissociations.”

In addition to general criticisms of scientific studies on empirical aesthetics, Bullot & Reber (B&R) particularly criticise two “representative studies” that manipulated paintings by Mondrian, those studies seemingly, “fail[ing] to consider the predictions suggested by a contextualist approach to the appreciation of imbalance” (sect. 4.2, para.2). Those criticisms are unjustified, both within the approaches of empirical aesthetics and the historical context and aims of Mondrian's work.

Grandparental altruism may be partially understood in the same way as other instances of altruism. Acts of altruism often occur in a context in which the actor has a broader sense of cause and effect than is evident in more typical behavioral interactions where cause and effect appear relatively transparent. Many believe that good deeds will ultimately produce good results.

Carruthers argues that an integrated faculty of metarepresentation evolved for mindreading and was later exapted for metacognition. A more consistent application of his approach would regard metarepresentation in mindreading with the same skeptical rigor, concluding that the “faculty” may have been entirely exapted. Given this result, the usefulness of Carruthers' line-drawing exercise is called into question.

The rationality debate centers on the meaning of deviations of decision makers' responses from the predictions/prescriptions of normative models. But for the debate to have significance, the meaning and functions of normative analysis must be clear. Presently, they are not, and the debate's persistence owes much to conceptual blur. An attempt is made here to clarify the concept of normative analysis.

The persistence of both inflammatory and neuropathic pain can only be explained when learning processes are taken into account in addition to sensitizing mechanisms. Learning processes such as classical and operant conditioning create memories for pain that are based on altered synaptic connections in supraspinal structures and persist without peripheral input. [coderre & katz; dickenson; wiesenfeld-hallin et al.]

Mismatch occurs when there is a discrepancy between produced gestures and co-occurring speech. In this commentary, I explore why research on mismatch might be called into question by changing views of what constitutes a gesture. I argue that the experimental procedure for producing mismatch, through its coding methods, is blind to the tight temporal coordination of gesture and affiliated talk.

Data from further human experiments touch four open questions in the target article. (1) Extinction of reward acquisition postulated by Depue & Collins's model could not be confirmed if correlating craving for, liking of, and satisfaction from smoking. (2) Intraindividual correspondence between responsivity to dopamine agonists and antagonists could likewise not be confirmed. (3) Nicotine craving and drug-induced hormone responses were not substantially correlated. (4) Low serotonin can be the cause and not just the moderator of dopaminergic sensitivity, and personality correlates of low dopamine/low MAO (aggressive impulsive traits) can hardly be related to the positive emotion associated with dopaminergic activity.

The target article argues that developmental processes are key to understanding the mirror neuron system, yet neglects several bodies of developmental research that are informative for doing so. Infants' actions and action understanding are structured by goals, and the former lends structure to the latter. Evaluating the origins and functions of mirror neurons depends on integrating investigations of neural, social-cognitive and motor development.

It is argued that the multilayered model offered by the shared circuits model (SCM) falls short of capturing an essential aspect of social cognition, namely, its distributed nature. The SCM therefore falls short of modeling emergent social cognition and behavior.