Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42856662›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

Mind versus machine: can biological models of the mind inspire machine intelligence design?

Michael Sharwood Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Michael Sharwood SmithSchool of Management and Languages, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Models of human cognition that look biologically plausible might in principle be a source of insights that could prove applicable to machine intelligence. The Modular Cognition Framework fits that description in terms of its biological credentials and its potential to identify the challenges confronting GenAI developers. However, it is an account of cognition in the mind and not in the brain. Accordingly, the account includes a clear delineation of the two intimately related concepts, mind and brain, and a definition of their relationship. If either brain or mind can contribute to this debate, a model of the mind could offer a more immediate promising source of inspiration than its complex neural underpinnings. Key features of the theoretical framework include its fundamentally heterarchical architecture having no single locus of control. In addition, general and domain-specific processing principles permit rapid, highly flexible, adaptable interaction between its network of modular systems as they collaborate in the execution of multiple tasks in a constantly changing environment. Eleven types of knowledge are constructed from experience using a similar number of inherited toolkits. Questions are raised as to whether the adaptable and highly creative character of evolved intelligence is reproducible in artificial systems, the best strategies for deriving benefit from studying biological systems and whether neural organisation is really the only place to look for biological insights.

Indexed as

activationcognitive control/executive functionconsciousnessGenAImind-brain distinctionmodular cognitionschemasworking memory

Identifiers

PMID42856662
PMCPMC13649684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.