The DOI matches its Crossref record.
From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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 the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 · Cited by 15,798
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
The human brain is intrinsically organized into dynamic, anticorrelated functional networks
Fox, M. D., Snyder, A. Z., Vincent, J. L., Corbetta, M., Van Essen, D. C., & Raichle, M. E. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0504136102 · Cited by 8,553
Working memory: Looking back and looking forward
Baddeley, A. (2003) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1201 · Cited by 5,200
DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204 · Cited by 4,500
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- 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
