Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zkb6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T21:31:38.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Did Residual Normality ever have a chance?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2003

Susan C. Levine,
Terry Regier and
Tracy L. Solomon
Susan C. Levine
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 s-levine@uchicago.edu t-regier@uchicago.edu tsolomon@uchicago.edu http://www.eci.uchicago.edu/faculty/S_Levine.html http://www.psych.uchicago.edu/~regier
Terry Regier
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 s-levine@uchicago.edu t-regier@uchicago.edu tsolomon@uchicago.edu http://www.eci.uchicago.edu/faculty/S_Levine.html http://www.psych.uchicago.edu/~regier
Tracy L. Solomon
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 s-levine@uchicago.edu t-regier@uchicago.edu tsolomon@uchicago.edu http://www.eci.uchicago.edu/faculty/S_Levine.html http://www.psych.uchicago.edu/~regier
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith (T&K-S) show that the assumption of residual normality (RN) does not hold in connectionist simulations, and argue that RN has been inappropriately applied to childhood disorders. We agree. However, we suggest that the RN hypothesis may never have been fully viable, either empirically or computationally.

Information

Type
Brief Report
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , December 2002, pp. 759 - 760
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press