Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12A Prior Road, Clifton, Bristol BS8-ITU, England.
Psychol Rev. 2010 Jan;117(1):300-6; discussion 289-90, 297-9, 306-8. doi: 10.1037/a0018047.
Replies to the comments by Plaut and McClelland and Quian Quiroga and Kreiman on the authors original article both challenged my characterization of localist and distributed representations. They also challenged the biological plausibility of grandmother cells on conceptual and empirical grounds. This reply addresses these issues in turn. The premise of my argument is that grandmother cells in neuroscience are the equivalent of localist representations in psychology. When defined in this way, grandmother cells are biologically plausible, given the neuroscience to date. By contrast, the neurophysiology is shown to be inconsistent with the distributed representations often learned in existing parallel distributed processing (PDP) models, and it poses a challenge to PDP theories more generally.
对作者原始文章的 Plaut 和 McClelland、Quian Quiroga 和 Kreiman 的评论的回应都对我对局部和分布式表示的描述提出了质疑。他们也从概念和经验的角度对祖母细胞的生物合理性提出了质疑。本回复依次讨论了这些问题。我论点的前提是，神经科学中的祖母细胞等同于心理学中的局部表示。以这种方式定义，鉴于迄今为止的神经科学，祖母细胞具有生物合理性。相比之下，神经生理学与在现有并行分布式处理 (PDP) 模型中经常学习的分布式表示不一致，并且对 PDP 理论提出了普遍挑战。
