I'm compiling a list of exemplary cognitive psychology and neuropsychology papers based on the quality of writing and was hoping for recommendations from others. George Miller's papers are at the top of my list, however, I'm not looking for famous or classic papers, but papers that are exceptionally well-crafted and well-written.
Well, this may not be what you're looking for, but I use it as an example of exceptionally well presented critical evaluation. It's a rather contentious paper followed by commentary from numerous authors.
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for" top-down" effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e229. doi:10.1017/S0140525X15000965
A paper I use for teaching a lot is by Ferreira and Dell (Ferreira & Dell, 2000). It is quite easy to read and even novices understand the predictions and what the outcomes mean. And the way they set up the predictions for their 4th experiment is exceptionally well done.
Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40(4), 296–340.
I would suggest this one: it presents some strong arguments, based on psychological theory, regarding the measures that should be used in developmental neuropsychology.
Arsalidou M., & Im-Bolter N. (2017). Why parametric measures are critical for understanding typical and atypical cognitive development. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 11, 1214-1224.
I would suggest anything written by Oliver Sacks; especially, An Anthropologist From Mars. Oliver Sacks writes in such a way as to give pause to any notion that professionals can be reliably guided by Norms. Each individual we serve is by definition NOT represented by normative statements.
Thank you, Graham and Sergio - your recommendations are great examples. The added bonus of the BBS paper are the commentaries from leading theorists that read like a symposium at a conference.
Also, I would greatly appreciate recommendations for well-crafted publications that are old, but well-written. It is difficult to find papers that are not laden with area-specific, shorthand acronyms and phrases that can obfuscate the research question for non-scientists.
I like recommend writings which are practical and interactive and project based.
Paul, I agree that Oliver Sacks' books are wonderfully written. In the same genre of case studies, I would include, "The Mind of the Mnemonist" by Alexander Luria and "To See but Not to See" by Glyn Humphreys and Jane Riddoch.
I'm nominating a recent publication - Article Why do we eat cereal but not lamb chops at breakfast? Invest...
by Lin Bian and Ellen Markman. It reads like a narrative and it concretizes cognitive theory with its application to real-world concerns. I find the research interesting, but it's their approach to communicating the science that I'm thinking about - particularly for a lay audience.
Yes, Allison, Luria's work is inspiring in its entirety. His accounts of testing youngsters illuminates a valuable process that has since lost adherents; 'testing the limits' of a person's test responses reveals their strengths. Current neuropsychology seems stuck in revealing the person's deficits.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction