In reply to Magnuson, Crinnion, Luthra, Gaston, and Grubb (2023), we challenge their conclusion that on-line activation feedback improves word recognition. This type of feedback is instantiated in the TRACE model (McClelland & Elman, 1986) as top-down spread of activation from lexical to phoneme nodes. We give two main reasons why Magnuson et al.'s demonstration that activation feedback speeds up word recognition in TRACE is not informative about whether activation feedback helps humans recognize words. First, the same speed-up could be achieved by changing other parameters in TRACE. Second, more fundamentally, there is room for improvement in TRACE's performance only because the model, unlike Bayesian models, is suboptimal. We also challenge Magnuson et al.'s claim that the available empirical data support activation feedback. The data they base this claim on are open to alternative explanations and there are data against activation feedback that they do not discuss. We argue, therefore, that there are no computational or empirical grounds to conclude that activation feedback benefits human spoken-word recognition and indeed no theoretical grounds why activation feedback would exist. Other types of feedback, for example feedback to support perceptual learning, likely do exist, precisely because they can help listeners recognize words.