On the first page, line 2: "a wide variety of animal models" is enough, the "non human" is redundant.
Page 2, line 17 from the bottom and above : Is consciousness an "additional ability loosely referred to as cognitive function"?
Line 11 from the bottom: is psychology a "diverse" field? Bottom line: is cognitive psychology only about human thinking?
Fig3: there should be a bar indicating the length of one micron on the figure.
Finally: much as I respect mathematics as the formal dress of any natural science, "Computational Neuroscience" is nothing but neuroscience performed by people who have learned to use computers, i.e. by the average scientific intellectual. Nobody talks abou computational physics, or computational astronomy.
Purves article is accurate and insightful, capturing the past history and pointing to the future evolution of neuroscience. I think it's good.