a1 Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development, School of Psychology, Birkbeck, University of London, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom
a2 Department of Psychology, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
a3 School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
a4 Division of Engineering, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom. email@example.com http://www.psyc.bbk.ac.uk/research/DNL/ firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.cbcd.bbk.ac.uk/people/scientificstaff/gert/ email@example.com http://www.bbk.ac.uk/psyc/staff/academic/dmareschal firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.bbk.ac.uk/psyc/staff/academic/mjohnson Sylvain.Sirois@manchester.ac.uk http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/SylvainSirois email@example.com http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/pse/diveng/research/cmms/ms/
In this response, we consider four main issues arising from the commentaries to the target article. These include further details of the theory of interactive specialization, the relationship between neuroconstructivism and selectionism, the implications of neuroconstructivism for the notion of representation, and the role of genetics in theories of development. We conclude by stressing the importance of multidisciplinary approaches in the future study of cognitive development and by identifying the directions in which neuroconstructivism can expand in the Twenty-first Century.