I am probably in what they would consider the over-applying camp ;). When it comes down to it, I think there's a tendency in many different fields to cast within-field learning problems as distinct from others, but in general, researchers in those fields often don't have a ton of experience on learning in other domains.
RE networks, I agree that there is likely evidence for distinct patterns of activation in various neuroimaging studies, but having worked in memory + neuroimaging, I think there's a serious risk that people will take something like "statistically significant difference in brain activity" and use it as a substitute for "substantial differences in learning behavior / retention". (this is a well known problem in imaging).
I'm not too familiar to L2 acquisition research, though, but those are my impressions from thumbing through some of the field. Would def love to hear some study recommendations :).
RE networks, I agree that there is likely evidence for distinct patterns of activation in various neuroimaging studies, but having worked in memory + neuroimaging, I think there's a serious risk that people will take something like "statistically significant difference in brain activity" and use it as a substitute for "substantial differences in learning behavior / retention". (this is a well known problem in imaging).
I'm not too familiar to L2 acquisition research, though, but those are my impressions from thumbing through some of the field. Would def love to hear some study recommendations :).