Cited by 124Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceCognitive Science and Education Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Organisation of Mind

Shallice, Tim, Cooper, Rick·2011·Oxford University Press eBooks

Abstract

Brain imaging has been immensely valuable in showing us how the mind works. However, many of our ideas about how the mind works come from disciplines such as experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and linguistics, which in their modern form date back to the computer revolution of the 1940s, and are not strongly linked to the subdiscipline of biomedicine. Cognitive science and neuroscience thus have very separate intellectual roots, and very different styles. Unfortunately, these two areas of knowledge have not been well integrated as far as higher mental processes are concerned. So how can these two be reconciled in order to develop a full understanding of the mind and brain? This is the focus of this book. The book starts by reviewing the history and intellectual roots of the field, looking at some of the researchers who guided and influenced it. The basic principles — theoretical and empirical and the inferential relation between them — are then considered with particular emphasis being placed on inferences to the organisation of the cognitive system from two empirical methodologies — neuropsychology and functional imaging. The core skeleton of the cognitive system is then analysed for the areas most critical for understanding rational thought. In the third section the components of simple cognitive acts are described, namely semantic processing, working memory, and cognitive operations. In the final section, more complex higher-level modulating processes are considered, including, supervisory processing, episodic memory, consciousness, and problem-solving.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199579242.001.0001

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • WM is an umbrella term encompassing diverse experimental paradigms, from maintenance of perceptual, spatial or verbal information to complex "n-back" and "span" tasks, with uncertain construct validity.

    “WM is itself an umbrella term encompassing diverse experimental paradigms, from maintenance of perceptual, spatial or verbal information to complex “n-back” and “span” tasks, with uncertain construct validity (Kane, Conway, Miura, & Colflesh, 2007; Shallice & Cooper, 2011).”

    From Strategic offloading of delayed intentions into the external environment (2015) · cites this paper as Shallice & Cooper, 2011

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shallice, T., & Cooper, R.
Venue
Oxford University Press eBooks
Published
2011-03-17
OpenAlex
W4234383704
Cited by
124
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.46
Type
book
Language
fr
Open access
closed
Locations
Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
Keywords
cognitive architecture, mind-brain relationship, cognitive science, neuroscience, neuropsychology, functional neuroimaging, rational thinking, semantic processing, working memory, cognitive processes, episodic memory, consciousness, problem solving, history of cognitive science

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