, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 61–72 | Cite as

Locked-in Syndrome, BCI, and a Confusion about Embodied, Embedded, Extended, and Enacted Cognition

  • Sven WalterEmail author
Original Paper


In a recent contribution to this journal, Andrew Fenton and Sheri Alpert have argued that the so-called “extended mind hypothesis” allows us to understand why Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) have the potential to change the self of patients suffering from Locked-in syndrome (LIS) by extending their minds beyond their bodies. I deny that this can shed any light on the theoretical, or philosophical, underpinnings of BCIs as a tool for enabling communication with, or bodily action by, patients with LIS: BCIs are not a case of cognitive extension. I argue that Fenton and Alpert’s claim to the contrary is the result of a widespread confusion about some related, but significantly different, approaches to cognition that all fall under the heading of “situated cognition.” I first provide a short taxonomy of various situated approaches to cognition, highlighting (some of) their important commonalities and differences, which should dissolve some of the confusions surrounding them. Then I show why the extended mind hypothesis is unsuitable as a model of BCI enhancements of LIS patients’ capacity to interact with their surroundings, and I argue that the situated approach with obvious bearings on the sort of questions that were driving Fenton and Alpert is not the idea that cognition is extended, but the idea that cognition is enacted.


Locked-in syndrome Brain-computer interfaces Extended cognition Situated cognition Enactivism Autonomy 



I’m indebted to an anonymous referee, to Lena Kästner and to Miriam Kyselo. Miriam has brought F&A’s paper to my attention, and were it not for her, I probably would never have thought about LIS and its potential implications for EXC and ENC.


  1. 1.
    Fenton, A. and S. Alpert. 2008. Extending our view on using BCIs for locked-in syndrome. Neuroethics 1: 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark, A. and D. Chalmers. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson, R. 1994. Wide computationalism. Mind 103: 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hurley, S. 1998. Consciousness in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson, R. 2004. Boundaries of the mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rowlands, M. 1999. The body in mind: understanding cognitive processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walter, S. and M. Kyselo. 2009. Review of Fred Adams and Kenneth Aizawa, The Bounds of Cognition. Erkenntnis 71: 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robbins, P. and M. Aydede. 2008. A short primer on situated cognition. In The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition, ed. P. Robbins and M. Aydede, 3–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    León-Carrión, J. P. van Eeckhout, M. Del Rosario Domínguez-Morales, and F.J. Pérez-Santamaría. 2002. The locked-in syndrome: a syndrome looking for a therapy. Brain Injury 16: 571–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith, E. and M. Delargy. 2005. Locked-in syndrome. British Medical Journal 330: 406–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haig, A. R. Katz, and V. Sahgal. 1987. Mortality and complications of the locked-in syndrome. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 68: 24–27.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    León-Carrión, J. P. van Eeckhout, and M. Del Rosario Domínguez-Morales. 2002. The locked-in syndrome: a syndrome looking for a therapy. Brain Injury 16: 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chisholm, N. and G. Gillett. 2005. The patient’s journey: Living with locked-in syndrome. British Medical Journal 331: 94–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schnakers, C. S. Majerus, S. Goldman, M. Boly, P. Van Eeckhout, S. Gay, F. Pellas, V. Bartsch, P. Peigneux, G. Moonen, and S. Laureys. 2008. Cognitive function in the locked-in syndrome. Journal of Neurology 255: 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bauer, G. F. Gerstenbrand, and E. Rumpl. 1979. Varieties of locked-in syndrome. Journal of Neurology 221: 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolpaw, J. 2007. Brain-computer interfaces as new brain output pathways. Journal of Physiology 5793: 613–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). 2006. Brain-computer interfaces come home: November 28, 2006. Accessed 30 July 2009.
  18. 18.
    Shapiro, L. 2007. The embodied cognition research programme. Philosophy Compass 2: 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clark, A. 2008. Supersizing the mind: embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adams, F. and K. Aizawa. 2008. The bounds of cognition. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clark, A. 2008. Pressing the flesh: a tension in the study of the embodied, embedded mind? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76: 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilson, M. 2002. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9: 625–636.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shapiro, L. 2004. The mind incarnate. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lakoff, G. and M. Johnston. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McBeath, M. D. Shaffer, and M. Kaiser. 1995. How baseball outfielders determine where to run to catch fly balls. Science 268: 569–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rupert, R. 2004. Challenges to the hypothesis of extended cognition. Journal of Philosophy 101: 389–428.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Regan, K. 1992. Solving the “real” mysteries of visual perception: the world as an outside memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology 46: 461–488.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Noë, A. 2004. Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Regan, K. and A. Noë. 2001. A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 939–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ballard, D. M. Hayhoe, P. Pook, and R. Rao. 1997. Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20: 723–767.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brooks, R. 1991. Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence 47: 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kirsh, D. and P. Maglio. 1994. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science 18: 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Clark, A. 1989. Microcognition: philosophy, cognitive science, and parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thompson, E. 2007. Mind in life: biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thompson, E. and M. Stapleton. 2009. Making sense of sense-making: reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi 28: 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rowlands, M. 2009. Enactivism and the extended mind. Topoi 28: 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Di Paolo, E. 2009. Extended life. Topoi 28: 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wheeler, M. 2009. Minds, things, and materiality. In The cognitive life of things: recasting the boundaries of the mind, ed. M. Lambros and R. Colin. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Clark, A. under review. Spreading the joy: why the machinery of consciousness is (probably) still in the head.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wolpaw, J. N. Birbaumer, D. McFarland, G. Pfurtscheller, and T. Vaughan. 2002. Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clinical Neurophysiology 113: 767–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heidegger, M. 1926. Being and time. New York, NY: SUNY. 1996.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rupert, R. 2009. Cognitive systems and the extended mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hurley, S. 2008. The shared circuits model: how control, mirroring and simulation can enable imitation and mindreading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31: 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gangopadyay, N. and J. Kiverstein. 2009. Enactivism and the unity of perception and action. Topoi 28: 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Varela, F. and E. Thompson. 2001. Radical embodiment, neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Science 5: 418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Levy, N. 2007. Rethinking neuroethics in the light of the extended mind thesis. American Journal of Bioethics 7: 3–11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations