English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The main thrust of Shamay-Tsoory and Mendelsohn's ecological approach is that "the use of real-life complex, dynamic, naturalistic stimuli provides a solid basis for understanding brain and behavior" (p. 851). Although we support the overall goal and objectives of Shamay-Tsoory and Mendelsohn's approach to "real-life" neuroscience, their review refers to the terms "ecological validity" and "representative design" in a manner different from that originally introduced by Egon Brunswik. Our aim is to clarify Brunswik's original definitions and briefly explain how these concepts pertain to the larger problem of generalizability, not just for history's sake, but because we believe that a proper understanding of these concepts is important for researchers who want to understand human behavior and the brain in the context of everyday experience, and because Brunswik's original ideas may contribute to Shamay-Tsoory and Mendelsohn's ecological approach. Finally, we argue that the popular and often misused concept of "ecological validity" is ill-formed, lacks specificity, and may even undermine the development of theoretically sound and tractable research.

The Reality of “Real-Life” Neuroscience: A Commentary on Shamay-Tsoory and Mendelsohn (2019)