Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g4pgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T01:28:56.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models need mechanisms, but not labels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2024

Seema Prasad  and
Bernhard Hommel Open the ORCID record for Bernhard Hommel [Opens in a new window]
Seema Prasad
Affiliation:
Cognitive Neurophysiology, Faculty of Medicine, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany seema.prasad@ukdd.de
Bernhard Hommel*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Shandong Normal University, Jinan, China bh@bhommel.onmicrosoft.com
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The target article proposes a model involving the important but not well-investigated topics of curiosity and creativity. The model, however, falls short of providing convincing explanations of the basic mechanisms underlying these phenomena. We outline the importance of mechanistic thinking in dealing with the concepts outlined in this article specifically and within psychology and cognitive neuroscience in general.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e111
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, B. (2011). There is no such thing as attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bechtel, W. (2008). Mechanisms in cognitive psychology: What are the operations?. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 983–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M., & Yu, A. J. (2007). Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 933–942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craver, C. F. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Lollo, V. (2018). Attention is a sterile concept; iterative reentry is a fertile substitute. Consciousness and cognition, 64, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eppinger, B., Goschke, T., & Musslick, S. (2021). Meta-control: From psychology to computational neuroscience. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(3), 447–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goschke, T. (2003). Voluntary action and cognitive control from a cognitive neuroscience perspective.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommel, B. (2015). Between persistence and flexibility: The Yin and Yang of action control. In Elliot, A. J. (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 2, pp. 33–67). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hommel, B. (2020). Pseudo-mechanistic explanations in psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), 1294–1305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2015). Learning from history: The need for a synthetic approach to human cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2017). The social transmission of metacontrol policies: Mechanisms underlying the interpersonal transfer of persistence and flexibility. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hommel, B., Chapman, C. S., Cisek, P., Neyedli, H. F., Song, J. H., & Welsh, T. N. (2019). No one knows what attention is. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 2288–2303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hommel, B., & Wiers, R. W. (2017). Towards a unitary approach to human action control. Trends in cognitive sciences, 21(12), 940–949.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mekern, V., Hommel, B., & Sjoerds, Z. (2019). Computational models of creativity: A review of single- and multi-process recent approaches to demystify creative cognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dooren, R., de Kleijn, R., Hommel, B., & Sjoerds, Z. (2021). The exploration-exploitation trade-off in a foraging task is affected by mood-related arousal and valence. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(3), 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar