Latash & Anson propose that so-called abnormal movements may be stable and adaptive coordination and control solutions to task goals in action. Their interpretation of this established viewpoint is confused throughout in the persistent crossing of frames of reference, both in the description of movement and action and the proposed theory for motor control.

Partial matching theory, which maintains that some memory representations of target items in immediate memory are overwritten by others, can predict both a “theoretical” and an “actual” maximum memory span provided no chunking takes place during presentation. The latter is around 4 ± 2 items, the exact number being determined by the degree of similarity between the memory representations of two immediately successive target items.

In Sagvolden et al.’s conceptualization of how a poor behavioral, social, and academic repertoire arises from an impaired interaction with the environment of an individual with a neurological disorder, we see a convergence between the medical diagnosis and the functional assessment on which the behavioral educational approach is based. If children with such a disorder do show delay-of-reinforcement steepened gradients, it is possible to predict their behavior under given circumstances. This could bring us to more precise diagnostic criteria and better intervention techniques.

Cimpian & Salomon (C&S) provide evidence that psychological essentialism rests on a domain-general attention to inherent causes. We suggest that the inherence heuristic may itself be undergirded by a more foundational cognitive bias, namely, a realist assumption about environmental regularities. In contrast, when considering specific representations, people may be more likely to activate attention to non-inherent, contingent, and historical links.

It is premature to conclude that music is an adaptation. Given the danger of overextending the adaptationist mode of explanation, the default position should be the byproduct hypothesis, and it should take very strong evidence to drag us into the adaptationist camp. As yet, the evidence isn't strong enough – and the proposed adaptationist explanations have a number of unresolved difficulties.

Reichle et al. specify two assumptions as being basic to E-Z Reader: Words are sequentially attended during fixations, and saccades are triggered by a cognitive event. We point out that there is little evidence for the first assumption and counterevidence for the second. Also, the labile/nonlabile stage distinction in saccade preparation seems to be contrary to current evidence. An alternative explanation of saccade onset times in reading assumes that saccades are strategically generated, independent of language processing, but are delayed on a probabilistic basis by processing difficulties.

The discovery of a quaternary complexity limitation to mature cognitive operations raises important theoretical issues. We propose that cognitive limitations arise naturally in a complex dynamic information processing system, and consider problems such as the distinction between parallel and serial processes and the representativeness of the empirical data base used by Halford et al. to support their relational complexity scheme.

Byrne & Hilbert are right that it might be an objective fact that a particular tomato is unique red, but wrong that it cannot simultaneously be yellowish-red (not only objectively, but from somebody else's point of view). Sensory categorization varies among organisms, slightly among conspecifics, and sharply across taxa. There is no question of truth or falsity concerning choice of categories, only of utility and disutility. The appropriate framework for color categories is Nominalism and Pluralistic Realism.

Mahr & Csibra (M&C) propose that episodic memory evolved to support epistemic authority in social communication. We argue for a more parsimonious interpretation whereby episodic memory subserves a broader preparatory function for both social and non-social behavior. We conclude by highlighting that functional accounts of episodic memory may need to consider the complex interrelations between self and subjective time.

Primary affects exist at an ecological-communicative level of analysis, and therefore are not identifiable with specific brain regions. The constructionist view favored in the target article, that emotions emerge from “more basic psychological processes,” does not specify the nature of these processes. These more basic processes may actually involve specific neurochemical systems, that is, primary motivational-emotional systems (primes), associated with specific feelings and desires that combine to form the “cocktail” of experienced emotion.

In the current model of visual transduction, the lifetime of active cGMP phosphodiesterase depends upon the period of its interaction with GTP-bound transducin. If recoverin regulates the lifetime of light-activated cGMP phosphodiesterase through inhibition of rhodopsin phosphorylation, rhodopsin should directly interact with cGMP phosphodiesterase and/or GTP-bound transducin complexed with cGMP phosphodiesterase. Is this true?

The target article diagnoses a dominance of liberal viewpoints with little evidence, promotes a conservative viewpoint without defining it, and wrongly projects the U.S. liberal-conservative spectrum to the whole field of social psychology. Instead, we propose to anticipate and reduce mixing of theorizing and ideology by using definitions that acknowledge divergence in perspective, and promote representative sampling and observation of the field, as well as dialogical publication.

Aggleton & Brown (A&B) propose that the hippocampal-anterior thalamic and perirhinal-medial dorsal thalamic systems play independent roles in episodic memory, with the hippocampus supporting recollection-based memory and the perirhinal cortex, recognition memory. In this commentary we discuss whether there is experimental support for the A&B model from studies of long-term memory in semantic dementia.

Stanford argues that cooperators achieve and maintain correlated interaction through the objectification of moral norms. We first challenge the moral/non-moral distinction that frames Stanford's discussion. We then argue that to the extent that norms are objectified (and we hold that they are at most objectified in a very thin sense), it is not for the sake of achieving correlated interaction.