An efficient coding approach to the debate on grounded cognition
- 107 Downloads
The debate between the amodal and the grounded views of cognition seems to be stuck. Their only substantial disagreement is about the vehicle or format of concepts. Amodal theorists reject the grounded claim that concepts are couched in the same modality-specific format as representations in sensory systems. The problem is that there is no clear characterization of (modal or amodal) format or its neural correlate. In order to make the disagreement empirically meaningful and move forward in the discussion we need a neurocognitive criterion for representational format. I argue that efficient coding models in computational neuroscience can be used to characterize modal codes: These are codes which satisfy special informational demands imposed by sensory tasks. Additionally, I examine recent studies on neural coding and argue that although they do not provide conclusive evidence for either the grounded or the amodal views, they can be used to determine what predictions these approaches can make and what experimental and theoretical developments would be required to settle the debate.
KeywordsConcepts Format Grounded cognition Efficient coding
I would like to thank the members of the Research Group on Cognition, Language and Perception (CLP) from Buenos Aires (Liza Skidelsky, Mariela Destéfano, Sergio Barberis, Sabrina Haimovici, Nicolás Serrano, Fernanda Velázquez Coccia and Cristial Stábile) for many early discussions of this material. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for very helpful suggestions on crucial aspects of the manuscript. Finally, I am indebted to Julieta Picasso Cazón for ongoing support.
CONICET postdoctoral research grant (2015–2017) (Argentina) and FONDECYT postdoctoral research grant (2018–2020) (Chile).
- Allport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. In S. K. Newman & R. Epstein (Eds.), Current perspectives in dysphasia. New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
- Alon, U. (2007a). An introduction to systems biology: Design principles of biological circuits. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
- Barlow, H. B. (1959). Symposium on the mechanization of thought processes (Vol. 10, pp. 535–539). London: H. M. Stationary.Google Scholar
- Barlow, H. B. (1961). Possible principles underlying the transformation of sensory messages. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.), Sensory communication (pp. 217–234). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.Google Scholar
- Földiák, P. (2002). Sparse coding in the primate cortex. In M. A. Arbib (Ed.), The handbook of brain theory and neural networks (pp. 1064–1068). Second Edition: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fuster, J. M. (2015). The prefrontal cortex (5th ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Martin, A. (2009). Circuits in mind: The neural foundations for object concepts. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (4th ed., pp. 1031–1045). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Muzzio, I. A., Levita, L., Kulkarni, J., Monaco, J., Kentros, C., Stead, M., et al. (2009). Attention enhances the retrieval and stability of visuospatial and olfactory representations in the dorsal hippocampus. PLoS Biology, 7(6), e1000140. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- O’Reilly, R. C., & Busby, R. S. (2001). Generalizable relational binding from coarse-coded distributed representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 14, 75–82.Google Scholar
- Prinz, J. (2002). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Reynolds, J. (2009). Canonical neural computation: A summary and a roadmap. A Workshop at Villa La Pietra, Florence, 17–19 April 2009.Google Scholar
- Sokoloff, L. (1989). Circulation and energy metabolism of the brain. In G. J. Siegel, W. Agranoff, R. W. Albers, & P. B. Molinoff (Eds.), Basic neurochemistry: Molecular, cellular, and medical aspects (4th ed., pp. 565–590). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
- Thorpe, S. (1995). Localized versus distributed representations. In M. A. Arbib (Ed.), The handbook of brain theory and neural networks. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Von der Malsburg, C. (1986). Am I thinking assemblies? In G. Palm & A. Aertsen (Eds.), Brain theory. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Wittgenstein, L. (1919). Tractatus Logico-philosophicus (D. Pears & B. McGuinness, Trans.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Wu, L. L. (1995). Perceptual representation in conceptual combination. Doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar