On the Logic of Testing Models of Cognition Through the Analysis of Brain-Damaged Performance

该项目涉及应用Gandyour的 “自举”的证据相关性的帐户， 认知神经心理学中的方法论争议。 的 争议集中在Caramazza的一个有影响力的主张上， 脑损伤的表现可以提供相关证据， 认知模型仅以个案研究的形式存在。 如果这一说法是正确的，那么对脑损伤的 性能-特别是，所有基于经典的研究 综合征分类（如布罗卡失语症、韦尼克失语症 失语症、传导性失语症等）--毫无价值， 约束竞争对手的确证或确证证据 功能架构 该项目的主要目标有两个：第一， 澄清单一案例的不同方法作用 与小组研究相比， 表演，双重分离，以及 缺陷（认知中的典型操作元素） 神经心理学）的基础上，自举帐户的 证据相关性;其次，评估自举 相对于其他证据相关的帐户-为 例如，假设演绎解释和贝叶斯 在详细的工作方面， 应用程序. 长期目标是全面分析 认知测试模型的逻辑，作为 科学中的一般理论建构。

This project involves the application of Glymour's "bootstrapping" account of evidential relevance to a methodological controversy in cognitive neuropsychology. The controversy centers on an influential claim by Caramazza that brain-damaged performance can provide relevant evidence for models of cognition only in the form of single-case studies. If this claim is true, then group studies of brain-damaged performance--in particular, all studies based on the classical syndrome categories (such as Broca's aphasia, Wernicke's aphasia, conduction aphasia, etc.)--are worthless as confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence in constraining rival functional architectures. The primary objective of this project is twofold: firstly, to clarify the different methodological roles of single-case versus group studies, as manifested in dissociations in performance, double dissociations, and associations of deficits (the typical operational elements in cognitive neuropsychology), on the basis of a bootstrapping account of evidential relevance; and secondly, to evaluate bootstrapping relative to other accounts of evidential relevance--for example, the hypothetico-deductive account and the Bayesian account--in terms of the detailed working out of this application. The long-term aim is a complete analysis of the logic of testing models of cognition, as an aspect of the general theory construction in the sciences.