Educational Psychology Review

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 331–349 | Cite as

Reading Comprehension is Embodied: Theoretical and Practical Considerations

  • Mark SadoskiEmail author
Review Article


In this review, I advance the embodied cognition movement in cognitive psychology as both a challenge and an invitation for the study of reading comprehension. Embodied cognition challenges theories which assume that mental operations are based in a common, abstract, amodal code of propositions and schemata. Based on growing research in behavioral and neuroscience, embodied cognition proposes that all cognitive activity is based in sensorimotor activity, opening exciting new vistas for research and practice. Exemplary embodied theories are summarized and compared including those of Glenberg, Barsalou, Lakoff and Johnson, Paivio, and others. Exemplary embodied educational applications to reading comprehension are reviewed. I propose that much reading comprehension research that cites an abstract theoretical basis is actually more consistent with the embodied perspective.


Embodied cognition Reading comprehension Mental simulations Mental images Perceptual symbols Educational applications 



This paper is dedicated to the memory of the pioneering cognitive theorist Allan Paivio (1925-2016). I would like to thank Art Glenberg, Wim Pouw, and an anonymous reviewer for their most encouraging and constructive assistance with earlier drafts of this paper.


  1. Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 2, 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvermann, D. E., Unrau, N. J., & Ruddell, R. B. (Eds.) (2013). Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed.). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, M. L. (2003). Embodied cognition: a field guide. Artificial Intelligence, 149, 91–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.Google Scholar
  7. Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245–283). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bell, N. (1986). Visualizing and verbalizing for language comprehension and thinking (1st ed.). Paso Robles: Academy of Reading Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Bell, N. (2007). Visualizing and verbalizing for language comprehension and thinking (2nd ed.). San Luis Obispo: Gander Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Block, C. C., Parris, S. R., & Whiteley, C. S. (2008). CPMs: helping primary grade students self-initiate comprehension processes through kinesthetic instruction. Reading Teacher, 61, 460–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boers, F. (2000). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, M. C., McNeil, N. M., & Glenberg, A. M. (2009). Using concreteness in education: real problems, potential solutions. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling processing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 177–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cole, D. (2015).The Chinese room argument. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 Ed.), E. N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
  17. Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: from linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–91). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dove, G. (2010). On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 129–141.Google Scholar
  19. Dove, G. (2016). Three symbol grounding problems: abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 23, 1109–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frank, S. L., Koppen, M., Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (2008). World knowledge in computational models of discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 45, 429–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibbs, R. W. (2008). Metaphor and thought: the state of the art. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 3–13). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibbs, R. W., & Matlock, T. (2008). Metaphor, imagination, and simulation: psycholinguistic evidence. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 161–176). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What is memory for? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.Google Scholar
  24. Glenberg, A. (2011). How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 5–18.Google Scholar
  25. Glenberg, A. M. (2015). Few believe the world is flat: how embodied cognition is changing the scientific understanding of cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glenberg, A. M., & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based language: a theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48, 905–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. L., Japutnich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: a comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glenberg, A., Sato, M., Cattaneo, L., Riggio, L., Palumbo, D., & Buccino, D. (2008). Processing abstract language modulates motor system activity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 905–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Glenberg, A. M., Walker, E. A., & Restrepo, M. A. (2016). EMBRACEing dual language learners. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.), Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 268–274). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Goldinger, S. D., Papesh, M. H., Barnhart, A. S., Hansen, W. A., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 23, 959–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Goolsby, R. D., & Sadoski, M. (2013). A theoretical approach to improving patient education through written materials. Annals of Behavioral Science and Medical Education, 19, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hald, E. A., de Nooijer, J., van Gog, T., & Bekkering, H. (2016). Optimizing word learning via links to perceptual and motoric experience. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. A., & Price, T. F. (2011). Leaning embodies desire: evidence that leaning forward increases relative left frontal cortical activation to appetitive stimuli. Biological Psychology, 87, 311–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jankowski, J., & Decker, S. (2013). On the design of a dual-mode interface for accessing 3D content on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71, 838–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jenson, J. V. (1983). Metaphor in argumentation. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 13, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2013). Human and machine thinking. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kaschak, M. P., Connor, C. M., & Dombek, J. L. (2017). Enacted reading comprehension: using bodily movement to aid the comprehension of abstract text content. PloS One, 12, e0169711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48, 805–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kiefer, M., & Trumpp, N. M. (2012). Embodiment theory and education: the foundations of cognition in perception and action. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 1, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kintsch. (2013). Revisiting the construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp. 807–839). Newark: International Reading Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kosslyn, S. M. (1980). Image and mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The case for mental imagery. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kousta, S.-T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Andrews, M., & del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lakoff, G. (2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 773–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  53. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leopold, C., & Mayer, R. C. (2015). An imagination effect in learning from scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114, 96–106.Google Scholar
  57. Matheson, H. E., and Barsalou, L. W. (in press) Embodied cognition. In: Wixted, J. (Ed.) The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  58. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Minogue, J., & Jones, M. G. (2006). Haptics in education: exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research, 76, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moulton, S. T., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2009). Imagining predictions: mental imagery as mental emulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1273–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: trends in academic progress 2012 (NCES 2013456). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  62. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015a). The nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading assessments (NCES 2015136). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  63. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015b). The nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading at grade 12 (NCES 2016108). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  64. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston (Reprinted 1979, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum).Google Scholar
  65. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Paivio, A. (2007). Mind and its evolution: a dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Paivio, A. (2010). Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon, 5, 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Paivio, A. (2013). Dual coding theory, word abstractness and emotion: a critical review of Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 292–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Paivio, A. (2014). Intelligence, dual coding theory, and the brain. Intelligence, 47, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Paivio, A., & Sadoski, M. (2011). Lexicons, contexts, events, and images: commentary on Elman (2009) from the perspective of dual coding theory. Cognitive Science, 35, 198–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Papesh, M. H. (2015). Just out of reach: on the reliability of the action-sentence compatibility effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 114, 116–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pouw, W. T. J. L., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Psychological Bulletin and Review (2016). Special virtual issue: arguments about the nature of concepts: symbols, embodiment and beyond. Available at:
  74. Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Review Neuroscience, 6, 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 99–135). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  76. Sadoski, M. (1983). An exploratory study of the relationships between reported imagery and the comprehension and recall of a story. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sadoski, M. (1985). The natural use of imagery in story comprehension and recall: replication and extension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 658–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sadoski, M. (1999). Comprehending comprehension [essay review of the book Comprehension: a paradigm for cognition]. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 493–500.Google Scholar
  79. Sadoski. (2009). Embodied cognition, discourse, and dual coding theory: new directions. In J. Renkema (Ed.), Discourse of course: an overview of research in discourse studies (pp. 187–195). Amsterdam: Johns-Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sadoski, M. (2015). Reading comprehension, embodied cognition, and dual coding theory. In S. R. Parris & K. Headley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research-based best practices (pp. 45–55). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  81. Sadoski, M., Goetz, E. T., Olivarez, A., Lee, S., & Roberts, N. M. (1990). Imagination in story reading: the role of imagery, verbal recall, story analysis, and processing levels. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2001). Imagery and text: a dual coding theory of reading and writing. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  83. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2013). Imagery and text: a dual coding theory of reading and writing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Sadoski, M., Paivio, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1991). A critique of schema theory in reading and a dual coding alternative. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 463–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sadoski, M., & Sanders, C. W. (2008). Mental imagery in clinical skills instruction: a promising solution to a critical problem. Annals of Behavioral Science and Medical Education, 14, 2–6.Google Scholar
  87. Sadoski, M., & Willson, V. L. (2006). Effects of a theoretically based large-scale reading intervention in a multicultural urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. R. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  90. Skemp, R. R. (1987). The psychology of learning mathematics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  91. Spivey, M. (2007). The continuity of mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Suggate, S. P. (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Christian, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: a field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 1–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Thompson, S., Provasnik, S., Kastberg, D., Ferraro, D., Lemanski, N., Roey, S., & Jenkins, F. (2012). Highlights from PIRLS 2011: reading achievement of U.S. fourth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2013010 revised). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  95. Turner, A., & Green, E. (1977). The construction and use of a propositional text base. Boulder, CO: Technical Report No. 63, Institute for the Study of Intellectual Behavior, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  96. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  97. Vigliocco, G., Kousta, S., Vinson, D., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2013). The representation of abstract words: what matters? Reply to Paivio’s (2013) comment on Kousta et al. (2011). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 288–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N., & Shinkareva, S. V. (2010). Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: a meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 1459–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 721–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wilson, A. D., & Golonka, S. (2013). Embodied cognition is not what you think it is. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(58), 1–13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00058.Google Scholar
  102. Xu, J., Kemeny, S., Park, G., Frattali, C., & Braun, A. (2005). Language in context: emergent features of word, sentence, and narrative comprehension. NeuroImage, 25, 1002–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of language and motivation, 44 (pp. 35–62). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  104. Zwaan, R. (2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: reframing the discussion. Topics in Cognitive Science, 18, 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, R. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 135, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations