The DOI matches its Crossref record; 176 of the 176 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate.
Abstract
Modularity has been the subject of intense debate in the cognitive sciences for more than 2 decades. In some cases, misunderstandings have impeded conceptual progress. Here the authors identify arguments about modularity that either have been abandoned or were never held by proponents of modular views of the mind. The authors review arguments that purport to undermine modularity, with particular attention on cognitive architecture, development, genetics, and evolution. The authors propose that modularity, cleanly defined, provides a useful framework for directing research and resolving debates about individual cognitive systems and the nature of human evolved cognition. Modularity is a fundamental property of living things at every level of organization; it might prove indispensable for understanding the structure of the mind as well.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. (2013) · Encyclopedia of Social Work · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,519
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,259
ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX
Chomsky, N. (1964) · doi:10.21236/ad0616323 · Cited by 13,587
(1976) · Cited by 10,423
I.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE
TURING, A. M. (1950) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/lix.236.433 · Cited by 10,290 · cited 2×
“The notion of meaning or content, however, is a folk notion: Human computational systems always process information based on formal properties—neural structures do not " know the meaning " of the information they are processing (Turing, 1950).”
BackgroundFodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
(2013) · Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6772-0 · Cited by 7,486
Relevance: Communication and Cognition
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986) · Cited by 6,708
The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition
Tomasello, M. (2009) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvjsf4jc · Cited by 6,368
Cited by
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137
Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612460685 · Cited by 4,271
The brain basis of emotion: a meta-analytic review
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Barrett, L. F. (2012) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11000446 · Cited by 2,320
“Keywords: Discrete emotion; emotion experience; emotion perception; meta-analysis; neuroimaging; psychological construction”
BackgroundNeural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain
Anderson, M. L. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000853 · Cited by 1,212
Darwin's mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x08003543 · Cited by 1,174
Metadata
- Authors
- Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R.
- Venue
- Psychological Review
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 628-647
- ISSN
- 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1471
- OpenAlex
- W1983257052
- Cited by
- 785
- References
- 176
- FWCI
- 41.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.628
- The paper
- Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.628
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
