Yes, but flaws remain

Hampshire and Owen maintain that their original paper was flawless, but doubts remain about their factor analysis methods and related assumptions. Failure to cite relevant papers, poor sampling and restricted ranges also remain problematic for the definitive conclusions they drew. The editorial review process for investigating the serious issues we raised prior to publication in Neuron remains a mystery. We stand by the opinion expressed in our preview: the Hampshire et al. paper is an interesting but flawed exercise and their conclusions are not as definitive, or original, as they believe.