CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,072Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Functions and Memory

From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure

Shallice, Tim·1988·Cambridge University Press eBooks
DOI 10.1017/cbo9780511526817
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As a cognitive neuropsychologist, Tim Shallice considers the general question of what can be learned about the operation of the normal cognitive system from the study of the cognitive difficulties arising from neurological damage and disease. He distinguishes two types of theories of normal function - primarily modular and primary non-modular - and argues that the problems of making valid inferences about normal function from studies of brain-damaged subjects are more severe for the latter. He first analyzes five well-researched areas in which some modularity can be assumed: short-term memory, reading, writing, visual perception, and the relation between input and output language processing. His aim is to introduce the methods about normal function mirror ones derived directly from studies of normal subjects and indeed at times preceded them. He then more theoretically examines these inferences, from group studies and individual case studies to modular and non-modular systems. Finally, he considers five areas where theories of normal function are relatively undeveloped and neuropsychology provides counterintuitive phenomena and guides to theory-building: the organization of semantic systems, visual attention, concentration and will, episodic memory, and consciousness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511526817

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The greater prevalence of constructs in executive function is largely because of the 'low process-behaviour correspondence' inherent in the study of 'central processes' compared with other fields which deal with more 'routine processing' or 'encapsulated resources'.

    “This is largely because of the 'low process-behaviour correspondence' (pp. 85-89) inherent in the study of 'central processes' compared with other fields which deal with more 'routine processing' or 'encapsulated resources' (Shallice, 1988; both terms assuming a particular organisation of the cognitive system).”

    From The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology (2006) · cites this paper as Shallice, 1988

  • The operation of the 'central executive' or 'supervisory attentional system' that the frontal lobes are thought to support is bound up with the operation of other systems to a degree that the nonexecutive components of vision or hearing are not.

    “Thus the operation of the 'central executive' (Baddeley, 1996) or 'supervisory attentional system' (Shallice, 1988) that the frontal lobes are thought to support is bound up with the operation of other systems to a degree that the nonexecutive components of, say, vision or hearing are not.”

    From The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology (2006) · cites this paper as Shallice, 1988

  • In Shallice's model, the possibility of domain- or material-specificity is either denied or left as a lacuna.

    “Even the most complex model in this domain, that of Shallice (e.g., Norman & Shallice, 1986; Shallice, 1988, 2002; Shallice & Burgess, 1991a, 1991b, 1993, 1996; Shallice et al., 1989) still utilises the concept of attention, where the possibility of domain- or material-specificity is either denied or left as a lacuna.”

    From The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology (2006) · cites this paper as Shallice, 1988

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shallice, T.
Affiliations
Medical Research Council (GB)
Corresponding author
Shallice, Tim
Venue
Cambridge University Press eBooks
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
1988-10-28
DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511526817
OpenAlex
W1503404806
Cited by
4,072
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 94 · 2012: 107
FWCI
18.27
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 7663 d)
Locations
  • Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • SDL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
neuropsychology, modularity, brain damage, short-term memory, reading, writing, visual perception, language processing, semantic system, visual attention, concentration, episodic memory, consciousness, theory development, individual case studies, group study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review