Tomasello's characterization of obligation as demanding and coercive is not an implication of the centrality of collaborative commitment. Not only is this characterization contentious, it appears to be falsified in some cases of personal conviction. The theory would be strengthened if the nature of obligation's force and collaborative commitment were directly linked, possibly through Tomasello's notions of identity and identification.

Koriat & Goldsmith's distinction between encoding processes and metamnemonic decision processes is theoretically and practically important, as is their methodology for separating the two. However, their accuracy measure is a conditional statistic, subject to the unfathomable selection effects that have hindered analogous measures in the past. We also find their arguments concerning basic and applied research mostly beside the point.

Aboitiz and colleagues propose that the tectorotundal pathway of birds and reptiles is homologous not to the mammalian colliculopulvinar system but to the posterior complex/intralaminar nuclei. However, as outlined below, a large amount of strong evidence points to a homology of the tectorotundal and the colliculopulvinar system. This makes it likely that DVR and isocortex might be in part homologous.

I argue for an extension of Clahsen's psycholinguistic paradigm to well-known languages with more complex morphological systems. This would help to address conceptual questions such as the nature of defaults and the way in which syncretisms are coded in the brain.

Arbib's gestural-origins theory does not tell us why or how a subsequent switch to vocal language occurred, and shows no systematic concern with the signalling affordances or constraints of either medium. Our frame/content theory, in contrast, offers both a vocal origin in the invention of kinship terms in a baby-talk context and an explanation for the structure of the currently favored medium.

moral heuristics are pervasive, and they produce moral errors. we can identify those errors as such even if we do not endorse any contentious moral view. to accept this point, it is also unnecessary to make controversial claims about moral truth. but the notion of moral heuristics can be understood in diverse ways, and a great deal of work remains to be done in understanding the nature of moral intuitions, especially those that operate automatically and nonreflectively, and in exploring the possibility of altering such intuitions through modest changes in context and narrative.

This commentary suggests an alternate definition for metacognition, as well as an alternate basis for the “aboutness” relation in representation. These together open the way for an understanding of mindreading that is significantly different from the one advocated by Carruthers.

Our research on non-religion supports the proposed shift toward more interactive models of prejudice. Being nonreligious is easily hideable and, increasingly, of low salience, leading to experiences not easily understood via traditional or contemporary frameworks for studying prejudice and prejudice reduction. This context affords new opportunity to observe reverse forms of interactive prejudice, which can interfere with prejudice reduction.

In challenging current conceptions of the role of working memory in sentence processing, Caplan & Waters consider studies comparing young and older adults on sentence processing. This commentary raises two challenges to Caplan & Waters's conclusions: first, working memory tasks appear to be age invariant. Second, the production of complex syntactic constructions appears not to be age invariant.

We argue that natural language has the right degree of representational richness for false belief reasoning, especially the complements under verbs of communication and belief. Language may indeed be necessary synchronically for cross-modular reasoning, but certain achievements in language seem necessary at least diachronically for explicit reasoning about false beliefs.

Although it is not their fault, Shors & Matzel's attempt to review the LTP and learning hypothesis suffers from there being no clear published statement of the idea. Their summary of relevant evidence is not without error, however, and it oversimplifies fundamental issues relating to NMDA receptor function. Their attentional hypothesis is intriguing but requires a better systems-level understanding of how attention contributes to cognitive function.