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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

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