Bowers et al. bring forward critical issues in the current use of deep neural networks (DNNs) to model primate vision. Our own research further reveals fundamentally different algorithms utilized by DNNs for visual processing compared to the brain. It is time to reemphasize the value of basic vision research and put more resources and effort on understanding the primate brain itself.

One important finding with the picture–word interference paradigm is that picture-naming performance is facilitated by the presentation of a distractor (e.g., CAP) formally related to the picture name (e.g., “cat”). In two picture-naming experiments we investigated the nature of such form facilitation effect with Mandarin Chinese, separating the effects of phonology and orthography. Significant facilitation effects were observed both when distractors were only orthographically or only phonologically related to the targets. The orthographic effect was overall stronger than the phonological effect. These findings suggest that the classic form facilitation effect in picture–word interference is a mixed effect with multiple loci: it cannot be attributed merely to the nonlexical activation of the target phonological segments from the visual input of the distractor. It seems instead that orthographically only related distractors facilitate the lexical selection process of picture naming, and phonologically only related distractors facilitate the retrieval of target phonological segments.

Some of the evidence for a “magical number 4” has come from the study of visual cognition, and Cowan reinterprets such evidence in terms of a single general limit on memory and attention. We evaluate this evidence, including some studies not mentioned by Cowan, and argue that limitations in visual processing are distinct from those involved in other memory phenomena.