» Articles » PMID: 23408669

Embodied Cognition is Not What You Think It is

Overview
Journal Front Psychol
Date 2013 Feb 15
PMID 23408669
Citations 105
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The most exciting hypothesis in cognitive science right now is the theory that cognition is embodied. Like all good ideas in cognitive science, however, embodiment immediately came to mean six different things. The most common definitions involve the straight-forward claim that "states of the body modify states of the mind." However, the implications of embodiment are actually much more radical than this. If cognition can span the brain, body, and the environment, then the "states of mind" of disembodied cognitive science won't exist to be modified. Cognition will instead be an extended system assembled from a broad array of resources. Taking embodiment seriously therefore requires both new methods and theory. Here we outline four key steps that research programs should follow in order to fully engage with the implications of embodiment. The first step is to conduct a task analysis, which characterizes from a first person perspective the specific task that a perceiving-acting cognitive agent is faced with. The second step is to identify the task-relevant resources the agent has access to in order to solve the task. These resources can span brain, body, and environment. The third step is to identify how the agent can assemble these resources into a system capable of solving the problem at hand. The last step is to test the agent's performance to confirm that agent is actually using the solution identified in step 3. We explore these steps in more detail with reference to two useful examples (the outfielder problem and the A-not-B error), and introduce how to apply this analysis to the thorny question of language use. Embodied cognition is more than we think it is, and we have the tools we need to realize its full potential.

Citing Articles

The Role of Immersive Experience in Anxiety Reduction: Evidence from Virtual Reality Sessions.

Wilczynska D, Walczak-Kozlowska T, Alarcon D, Arenilla M, Jaenes J, Hejla M Brain Sci. 2025; 15(1).

PMID: 39851382 PMC: 11763503. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci15010014.


Synergy Makes Direct Perception Inefficient.

de Llanza Varona M, Martinez M Entropy (Basel). 2024; 26(8).

PMID: 39202178 PMC: 11353286. DOI: 10.3390/e26080708.


Neurodynamical Computing at the Information Boundaries of Intelligent Systems.

Monaco J, Hwang G Cognit Comput. 2024; 16(5):1-13.

PMID: 39129840 PMC: 11306504. DOI: 10.1007/s12559-022-10081-9.


Higher order affordances.

Stoffregen T, Wagman J Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; 32(1):1-30.

PMID: 38944659 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02535-y.


The Neural Correlates of Embodied L2 Learning: Does Embodied L2 Verb Learning Affect Representation and Retention?.

Zappa A, Bolger D, Pergandi J, Fargier R, Mestre D, Frenck-Mestre C Neurobiol Lang (Camb). 2024; 5(2):360-384.

PMID: 38911460 PMC: 11192445. DOI: 10.1162/nol_a_00132.


References
1.
Wilson A, Bingham G . Identifying the information for the visual perception of relative phase. Percept Psychophys. 2008; 70(3):465-76. DOI: 10.3758/pp.70.3.465. View

2.
Thelen E, Schoner G, Scheier C, Smith L . The dynamics of embodiment: a field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behav Brain Sci. 2001; 24(1):1-34; discussion 34-86. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x01003910. View

3.
Miles L, Nind L, Neil Macrae C . Moving through time. Psychol Sci. 2010; 21(2):222-3. DOI: 10.1177/0956797609359333. View

4.
Montagne G, Laurent M, Durey A, Bootsma R . Movement reversals in ball catching. Exp Brain Res. 1999; 129(1):87-92. DOI: 10.1007/s002210050939. View

5.
Cummins F . Oscillators and syllables: a cautionary note. Front Psychol. 2012; 3:364. PMC: 3464477. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00364. View