Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the dynamic between growth and decline . Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–626 .
2.
Baltes, P. B., Staudinger, U., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning . Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 471–507 .
3.
Bronfenbrenner, U. & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature–nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model . Psychological Review, 101, 568–586 .
4.
Cole, M. & Cole, S. (1989). The development of children. New York: Scientific American Books .
5.
Garlick, D. (2002). Understanding the nature of the general factor of intelligence: The role of individual differences in neural plasticity as an explanatory mechanism . Psychological Review, 109, 116–136 .
6.
Gottlieb, G. (1998). Normally occurring environmental and behavioral influences of gene activity: From central dogma to probabilistic epigenesis . Psychological Review, 105, 792–802 .
7.
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
8.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1998). Development itself is the key to understand developmental disorders . Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 389–398 .
9.
Li, S.-C. (2003). Biocultural orchestration of developmental plasticity across levels: The interplay of biology and culture in shaping the mind and behavior across the life span . Psychological Bulletin, 129, 171–194 .
10.
Li, S.-C. (2004). Neurocomputational perspectives linking neuromodulation, processing noise, representational distinctiveness, and cognitive aging. In R. Cabeza, L. Nyberg, & D. C. Park (Eds.), Cognitive neuroscience of aging: Linking cognitive and cerebral aging. New York: Oxford University Press .
11.
Li, S.-C., & Lindenberger, U. (2004). Co-constructed functionality instead of functional normality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (In the Press).
12.
Li, S.-C., Lindenberger, U., & Sikström, S. (2001). Aging cognition: From neuromodulation to representation . Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 479–486 .
13.
McClelland, J. L., & Jenkins, E. (1991). Nature, Nurture and Connections: Implications of Connectionist Models of Cognitive Development. In K. Vanlehn (Ed.), Architectures for Intelligence (pp. 417-417). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .
14.
Munakata, Y., & McClelland, J. L. (2003). Connectionist models of development . Developmental Science, 6, 413–429 .
15.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books .
16.
Smith, L. B. & Samuelson, L. K. (2003). Different is good: connectionism and dynamic systems theory are complementary emergentist approaches to development . Developmental Science, 6, 434–439 .
17.
Spencer, J. P. & Schöner, G. (2003). Bridging the representational gap in the dynamic systems approach to development . Developmental Science, 6, 392–412 .
18.
Thelen, E. & Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: are they really different? Developmental Science, 6, 378–391 .
19.
Thelen, E. & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
20.
Thomas, M., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2004). Are developmental disorders like cases of adult brain damage? Implications from connectionist modeling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (In the Press).
21.
van Geert, P. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond . Psychological Review, 105, 634–677 .
