En su artículo, Enesco y Delval hacen una evaluación detenida del éxito que las teorías modulares han tenido entre los psicólogos del desarrollo. Empiezan por pasar revista a las características esenciales de los módulos fodorianos con referencia al lenguaje como ejemplo primario y sus revisiones más recientes. A continuación, examinan los datos empíricos y las explicaciones teóricas alternativas que en la actualidad cuestionan las interpretaciones masivamente modulares de la psicología evolucionista, citando estudios sobre la cognición en los bebés y en trastornos del desarrollo. El presente comentario se basa fundamentalmente en esta última fuente de datos—los trastornos del desarrollo—en un intento de complementar y discutir los argumentos presentados por los autores. Voy a centrarme especialmente en la importancia de comprender los mecanismos de cambio en el desarrollo atípico, para a continuación destacar brevemente algunas cuestiones que atañen tanto a las teorías modulares como a las no modulares.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnsariD.DonlanC.ThomasM. S.EwingS. A.PeenT.Karmiloff-SmithA. (2003). What makes counting count? Verbal and visuo-spatial contributions to typical and atypical number development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 50–62.
2.
BishopD. V. (1997). Cognitive neuropsychology and developmental disorders: uncomfortable bedfellows. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 50, 899–923.
3.
BottingN. (2005). Non-verbal cognitive development and language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 317–326.
4.
DehaeneS. (1997). The number sense.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
DeruelleC.ManciniJ.LivetM. O.Cassé-perrotC.De SchonenS. (1999). Configural and local processing of faces in children with Williams syndrome. Brain and Cognition, 41, 276–98.
6.
DunnJ.KirsnerK. (2003). What can we infer from double dissociations?Cortex, 39, 1–7.
7.
GómezJ. C. (2005). Species comparative studies and cognitive development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 118–25.
8.
GreenoughW. T.KlintsovaA. Y.IrwinS. A.GalvezR.BatesK. E.WeilerI. J. (2001). Synaptic regulation of protein synthesis and the fragile X protein. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 7101–7106.
9.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1998). Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 10, 389–398.
10.
Karmiloff-SmithA.ThomasM. S. C. (2003). What can developmental disorders tell us about the neurocomputational constraints that shape development? The case of Williams syndrome. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 969–990.
Karmiloff-SmithA.ThomasM.AnnazD.HumphreysK.EwingS.BraceN.DuurenM.PikeG.GriceS.CampbellR. (2004). Exploring the Williams syndrome face processing debate: The importance of building developmental trajectories. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1258–1274.
13.
KoganC. S.BoutetI.CornishK.ZangenehpourS.MullenK. T.HoldenJ. J.Der KaloustianV. M.AndermannE.ChaudhuriA. (2004a). Differential impact of the FMR1 gene on visual processing in fragile X syndrome. Brain, 127, 591–601.
14.
KoganC. S.BertoneA.CornishK.BoutetI.Der KaloustianV. M.AndermannE.FaubertJ.ChaudhuriA. (2004b). Integrative cortical dysfunction and pervasive motion perception deficit in fragile X syndrome. Neurology, 63, 1634–1639.
15.
LaingE.ButterworthG.AnsariD.GsoedlM.LonghiE.PanagiotakiG.PatersonS.Karmiloff-SmithA. (2002). Atypical development of language and social communication in toddlers with Williams syndrome. Developmental Science, 5, 233–246.
16.
O'donnellW. T.WarrenS. T. (2002). A decade of molecular studies of fragile X syndrome. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 25, 315–338.
PhillipsC. E.JarroldC.BaddeleyA. D.GrantJ.Karmiloff-SmithA. (2004). Comprehension of spatial language terms in Williams syndrome: evidence for an interaction between domains of strength and weakness. Cortex, 40, 85–101.
19.
ScerifG.Karmiloff-SmithA. (2005). The dawn of cognitive genetics? Crucial developmental caveats. Trends in Cognitive Sciences9, 126–35.
20.
ScerifG.Karmiloff-SmithA.CamposR.ElsabbaghM.DriverJ.CornishK. (2005). To look or not to look? Typical and atypical development of oculomotor control. Journal of Cognitive Neurosciece, 17, 591–604.
21.
ThomasM. S. C.GrantJ.BarhamZ.GsödlM.LaingE.LakustaL.TylerL. K.GriceS.PatersonS.Karmiloff-SmithA. (2001). Past tense formation in Williams syndrome. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 143–76.
22.
ThomasM. S. C.Karmiloff-SmithA. (2002). Are developmental disorders like cases of adult brain damage? Implications from connectionist modelling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 727–750.
23.
VicariS.CaselliM. C.GagliardiC.TonucciF.VolterraV. (2002). Language acquisition in special populations: a comparison between Down and Williams syndromes. Neuropsychologia, 40, 2461–2470.
24.
VolterraV.CaselliM. C.CapirciO.TonucciF.VicariS. (2003). Early linguistic abilities of Italian children with Williams syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology, 23, 33–58.
