Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Action, affordances, and anorexia: body representation and basic cognition

Abstract

We evaluate a growing trend towards anti-representationalism in cognitive science in the context of recent research into the development and maintenance of anorexia nervosa in cognitive neuropsychiatry. We argue two things: first, that this research relies on an explanatorily robust concept of representation—the concept of a long-term body schema; second, that this body representation underlies our most basic environmental interactions and affordance perception—the psychological phenomena supposed to be most hospitable to a non-representationalist treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    An unstated corollary of this assumption that we will take for granted is that the contents of cognitive representations must be an objective property of the representations, and not derived from the interpretation of the theorist.

  2. 2.

    An anonymous reviewer pointed out the possibility that these computations might rely on “hard-coded” values, which presumably don’t count as representations as they don’t track the body. However, this possibility is at odds with knowledge of movement dynamics. Our motor commands are consistently body size appropriate: as we transition from childhood to adulthood and our bodies grow, our motor commands reflect this change in size. Similarly so for more sudden changes in body size (fat and muscle fluctuation, loss of limbs, etc). And, of course, motor commands are altered when the dimensions of tools are incorporated into the spatial content of the body schema (Gadsby 2017c, pp. 22–23). This evidence discounts the possibility that motor command computation relies on “hard-coded” size values, rather than a body schema representation which tracks the size of the body (and other action-relevant effectors such as tools).

  3. 3.

    As an anonymous reviewer points out, given that our argument is one of abduction—i.e. that the best explanation of the evidence posits satisfaction conditions—in order to counter this argument anti-representationalists would need to provide not just an alternative non-representational explanation but a better one, relative to some standards of explanatory power (e.g. simplicity, coherence, predictive power, consilience with other scientific research, etc.).

  4. 4.

    Whilst different groups of anti-representationalists emphasize different activities, basic cognition is generally characterized as consisting of our capacities for “online” sensorimotor engagement with the environment e.g. learning, skilled action, environmental interaction, action-oriented perception (Dreyfus 2002; Gallagher 2017; Hutto and Myin 2013). This contrasts against “higher-order” capacities—such as language, thought, memory, planning etc.—which are generally regarded as “representation-hungry” (Clark and Toribio 1994).

References

  1. Alsmith, A. J. T., & de Vignemont, F. (2012). Embodying the mind and representing the body. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(1), 1–13.

  2. Anderson, M. (2014). After phrenology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  3. Barrett, L. (2011). Beyond the brain: How the body shapes the way we think. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

  4. Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

  5. Bermúdez, J. (2010). Cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  6. Brooks, R. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91)90053-m.

  7. Bruch, H. (1962). Perceptual and conceptual disturbances in anorexia nervosa. Psychosomatic Medicine, 24, 187–194.

  8. Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195.

  9. Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  10. Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  11. Clark, A. (2015). Predicting peace: The end of the representation wars—A reply to Michael Madary. In T. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Eds.), Open MIND: 7(R). Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group. https://doi.org/10.15502/9783958570979.

  12. Clark, A., & Toribio, J. (1994). Doing without representing? Synthese, 101(3), 401–431.

  13. Coltheart, M. (2001). Assumptions and methods in cognitive neuropsychology. In B. Rapp (Ed.), The handbook of cognitive neuropsychology: What deficits reveal about the human mind (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

  14. de Vignemont, F. (2010). Body schema and body image—Pros and cons. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 669–680.

  15. de Vignemont, F. (2014). A multimodal conception of bodily awareness. Mind, 123(492), 989–1020.

  16. Declerck, G. (2013). Why motor simulation cannot explain affordance perception. Adaptive Behavior, 21(4), 286–298.

  17. Declerck, G. (2015). How we remember what we can do. Socioaffective Neuroscience and Psychology, 5, 24807.

  18. Dretske, F. (1986). Misrepresentation. In R. Bogdan (Ed.), Belief: Form, content, and function (pp. 17–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  19. Dreyfus, H. L. (2002). Intelligence without representation–Merleau-Ponty’s critique of mental representation the relevance of phenomenology to scientific explanation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1(4), 367–383.

  20. Engel, A., Friston, K., & Kragic, D. (2015). The pragmatic turn (1st ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  21. Engel, M. M., & Keizer, A. (2017). Body representation disturbances in visual perception and affordance perception persist in eating disorder patients after completing treatment. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 16184.

  22. Fodor, J. (1987). Psychosemantics: The problem of meaning in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  23. Gadsby, S. (2017a). Anorexia nervosa and oversized experiences. Philosophical Psychology, 30(5), 594–615.

  24. Gadsby, S. (2017b). Explaining body size beliefs in anorexia. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 22(6), 495–507.

  25. Gadsby, S. (2017c). Distorted body representations in anorexia nervosa. Consciousness and Cognition, 51, 17–33.

  26. Gadsby, S. (2018). How are the spatial characteristics of the body represented? A reply to Pitron & de Vignemont. Consciousness and Cognition, 62, 163–168.

  27. Gallagher, S. (2017). Rethinking the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

  28. Gallagher, S., & Cole, J. (1995). Body image and body schema in a deafferented subject. Journal of Mind and Behaviour, 16, 369–389.

  29. Garbarini, F., & Adenzato, M. (2004). At the root of embodied cognition: Cognitive science meets neurophysiology. Brain and Cognition, 56(1), 100–106.

  30. Garzón, F. (2008). Towards a general theory of antirepresentationalism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(3), 259–292. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axl007.

  31. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception (1st ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

  32. Grush, R. (1997). The architecture of representation. Philosophical Psychology, 10(1), 5–23.

  33. Guardia, D., Conversy, L., Jardri, R., Lafargue, G., Thomas, P., Dodin, V., et al. (2012). Imagining one’s own and someone else’s body actions: Dissociation in anorexia nervosa. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e43241.

  34. Guardia, D., Lafargue, G., Thomas, P., Dodin, V., Cottencin, O., & Luyat, M. (2010). Anticipation of body-scaled action is modified in anorexia nervosa. Neuropsychologia, 48(13), 3961–3966.

  35. Haggard, P., & Wolpert, D. M. (2005). Disorders of body scheme. In H. J. Freund, M. Jeannerod, M. Hallett & R. Leiguarda (Eds.), Higher-order motor disorders: From neuroanatomy and neurobiology to clinical neurology (pp. 261–271).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  36. Halligan, P. W., & David, A. S. (2001). Cognitive neuropsychiatry: Towards a scientific psychopathology. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(3), 209–215.

  37. Haugeland, J. (1991). ‘Representational genera. In W. Ramsey, S. Stich, & D. Rumelhart (Eds.), Philosophy and connectionist theory (pp. 61–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  38. Head, H., & Holmes, G. (1911). Sensory disturbances from cerebral lesions. Brain, 34(2–3), 102–254.

  39. Heft, H. (1989). Affordances and the body: An intentional analysis of Gibson’s ecological approach to visual perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 19, 1–30.

  40. Hutto, D., & Myin, E. (2013). Radicalizing enactivism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  41. Hutto, D., & Satne, G. (2015). The natural origins of content. Philosophia, 43(3), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-015-9644-0.

  42. Isaac, A. (2013). Objective similarity and mental representation. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91(4), 683–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2012.728233.

  43. Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage, 14(103), 109.

  44. Kanakam, N., & Treasure, J. (2013). A review of cognitive neuropsychiatry in the taxonomy of eating disorders: State, trait, or genetic? Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 18(1–2), 83–114.

  45. Keizer, A., Smeets, M., Dijkerman, H., Uzunbajakau, S., Van Elburg, A., & Postma, A. (2013). Too fat to fit through the door: First evidence for disturbed body-scaled action in anorexia nervosa during locomotion. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64602.

  46. Keizer, A., Smeets, M., Dijkerman, H., Van den Hout, M., Klugkist, I., Van Elburg, A., et al. (2011). Tactile body image disturbances in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Research, 190(1), 115–120.

  47. Keizer, A., Smeets, M., Dijkerman, H., Van Elburg, A., & Postma, A. (2012). Aberrant somatosensory perception in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Research, 200, 530–537.

  48. Metral, M., Guardia, D., Bauwens, I., Guerraz, M., Lafargue, G., Cottencin, O., et al. (2014). Painfully thin but locked inside a fatter body: Abnormalities in both anticipation and execution of action in anorexia nervosa. BMC Research Notes, 7(1), 707.

  49. Myin, E., & Hutto, D. D. (2015). REC: Just radical enough. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 41(1), 61–71.

  50. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  51. O’Shaughnessy, B. (1980). The will: Dual aspect theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  52. Paillard, J. (1999). Body schema and body image: A double dissociation in deafferented patients. In G. N. Gantchev, S. Mori & J. Massion (Eds.), Motor control, today and tomorrow (pp. 197–214). Sofia: Academic Publishing House.

  53. Pickering, M. J., & Clark, A. (2014). Getting ahead: Forward models and their place in cognitive architecture. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(9), 451–456.

  54. Proske, U., & Gandevia, S. (2012). The proprioceptive senses: Their roles in signaling body shape, body position and movement, and muscle force. Physiological Reviews, 92(4), 1651–1697.

  55. Quine, W. (1960). Word and object (1st ed.). Cambridge: Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  56. Ramsey, W. (2007). Representation reconsidered. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  57. Rescorla, M. (2013). Bayesian perceptual psychology. In M. Matthen (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the philosophy of perception. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

  58. Richardson, M., Shockley, K., Fajen, B. R., Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. (2008). Ecological psychology: Six principles for an embodied–embedded approach to behaviour. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (pp. 161–187). New York: Elsevier.

  59. Rosenberg, A. (2015). The genealogy of content or the future of an illusion. Philosophia, 43(3), 537–547.

  60. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  61. Schwoebel, J., & Coslett, H. B. (2005). Evidence for multiple, distinct representations of the human body. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 543–553.

  62. Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied cognition. London: Routledge.

  63. Smeets, M. (1997). The rise and fall of body size estimation research in anorexia nervosa: A review and reconceptualization. European Eating Disorders Review, 5(2), 75–95.

  64. Smeets, M., Ingleby, J., Hoek, H., & Panhuysen, G. (1999). Body size perception in anorexia nervosa: A signal detection approach. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46, 465–477.

  65. Spitoni, G., Serino, A., Cotugno, A., Mancini, F., Antonucci, G., & Pizzamiglio, L. (2015). The two dimensions of the body representation in women suffering from anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Research, 230(2), 181–188.

  66. Van Gelder, T. (1995). What might cognition be, if not computation? Journal of Philosophy, 92(7), 345–381. https://doi.org/10.2307/2941061.

  67. Von Eckardt, B. (2012). The representational theory of mind. In K. Frankish & W. Ramsey (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive science (1st ed., pp. 29–50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  68. Warren, W., & Wang, S. (1987). Visual guidance of walking through apertures: Body-scaled information for affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 371–383.

  69. Williams, D. (2017). Predictive processing and the representation wars. Minds and Machines. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9441-6.

  70. Williams, D. (2018). Pragmatism and the predictive mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-017-9556-5.

  71. Williams, D., & Colling, L. J. (2017). From symbols to icons: The return of resemblance in the cognitive neuroscience revolution. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1578-6.

  72. Wittgenstein, L., & Anscombe, G. (1953). Philosophical investigations (1st ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

  73. Wolpert, D., & Ghahramani, Z. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3(Suppl), 1212–1217.

  74. Wolpert, D. M., & Kawato, M. (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks, 11(7), 1317–1329.

  75. Zipoli Caiani, S. (2017). When the affordances disappear: Dynamical and computational explanations of optic ataxia. Theory and Psychology, 27(5), 663–682.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Cognition and Philosophy Lab at Monash University and two anonymous reviewers for their feedback. This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship (S.G.) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (D.W).

Author information

Correspondence to Stephen Gadsby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gadsby, S., Williams, D. Action, affordances, and anorexia: body representation and basic cognition. Synthese 195, 5297–5317 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1843-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Representation
  • Anorexia
  • Affordances
  • Content
  • Basic cognition
  • Enactivism
  • Action
  • Action-oriented
  • Embodied
  • Hard problem of content
  • Radical