Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
  • Log in
Six views of embodied cognition
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Theoretical and Review Articles
  • Published: December 2002

Six views of embodied cognition

  • Margaret Wilson1 

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review volume 9, pages 625–636 (2002)Cite this article

  • 50k Accesses

  • 2104 Citations

  • 62 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

The emerging viewpoint of embodied cognition holds that cognitive processes are deeply rooted in the body’s interactions with the world. This position actually houses a number of distinct claims, some of which are more controversial than others. This paper distinguishes and evaluates the following six claims: (1) cognition is situated; (2) cognition is time-pressured; (3) we off-load cognitive work onto the environment; (4) the environment is part of the cognitive system; (5) cognition is for action; (6) offline cognition is body based. Of these, the first three and the fifth appear to be at least partially true, and their usefulness is best evaluated in terms of the range of their applicability. The fourth claim, I argue, is deeply problematic. The sixth claim has received the least attention in the literature on embodied cognition, but it may in fact be the best documented and most powerful of the six claims.

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

References

  • Agre, P. E. (1993). The symbolic worldview: Reply to Vera and Simon.Cognitive Science,17, 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1986).Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., &Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 18, pp. 647–667). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, D. H. (1996). On the function of visual representation. In K. A. Akins (Ed.),Perception (pp. 111–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, D. H., Hayhoe, M. M., Pook, P. K., &Rao, R. P. N. (1997). Deictic codes for the embodiment of cognition.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,20, 723–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999a). Language comprehension: Archival memory or preparation for situated action?Discourse Processes,28, 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999b). Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 577–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, R. D. (1995). A dynamical systems perspective on agent- environment interaction.Artificial Intelligence,72, 173–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, R. D. (2000). Dynamical approaches to cognitive science.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 91–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. (1986). A robust layered control system for a mobile robot.Journal of Robotics & Automation,2, 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. (1991a). Intelligence without representation.Artificial Intelligence Journal,47, 139–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. (1991b). New approaches to robotics.Science,253, 1227–1232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. (1999). Cambrian intelligence:The early history of the new AI. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiel, H., &Beer, R. (1997). The brain has a body: Adaptive behavior emerges from interactions of nervous system, body, and environment.Trends in Neurosciences,20, 553–557.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. S., Ramachandran, V. S., &Sjenowski, T. J. (1994). A critique of pure vision. In C. Koch & J. L. Davis (Eds.),Large-scale neuronal theories of the brain (pp. 23–60). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1998). Embodied, situated, and distributed cognition. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.),A companion to cognitive science (pp. 506–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A., &Grush, R. (1999). Towards a cognitive robotics.Adaptive Behavior,7, 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, N. J., Eichenbaum, H., Deacedo, B. S., &Corkin, S. (1985). Different memory systems underlying acquisition of procedural and declarative knowledge. In D. S. Olton, E. Gamzu, & S. Corkin (Eds.),Memory dysfunctions: An integration of animal and human research from preclinical and clinical perspectives (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 444, pp. 54–71). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Umiltà, C. A., &Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Evidence for visuomotor priming effect.NeuroReport,8, 347–349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (1995).Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Waal, F. B. M. (2001).The ape and the sushi master: Cultural reflections by a primatologist. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epelboim, J. (1997). Deictic codes, embodiment of cognition, and the real world.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,20, 746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farah, M. J. (1995). The neural bases of mental imagery. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.),The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 963–975). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1983).The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (1995).Artificial minds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. W., Bogdanovich, J. M., Sykes, J. R., &Barr, D. J. (1997). Metaphor in idiom comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,37, 141–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,20, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., &Robertson, D. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions.Discourse Processes,28, 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., &Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 379–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodale, M. A., &Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action.Trends in Neurosciences,15, 20–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. J. (1999).A history of modern psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafton, S. T., Fadiga, L., Arbib, M. A., &Rizzolatti, G. (1997). Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools.NeuroImage,6, 231–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., &Moore, J. L. (1993). Situativity and symbols: Response to Vera and Simon.Cognitive Science,17, 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grush, R. (1996).Emulation and cognition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grush, R. (1997). Yet another design for a brain? Review of Port and van Gelder (Eds.),Mind as motion. Philosophical Psychology,10, 233–242.

  • Grush, R. (1998).Perception, imagery, and the sensorimotor loop. www.pitt.edu/~grush/papers/%21papers.html. English translation of: Wahrnehmung, Vorstellung und die sensomotorische Schleife. In F. Esken & H.-D. Heckmann (Eds.),Bewuβtsein und Repräsentation. Paderborn, Germany: Ferdinand Schöningh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995).Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, J. M., &Goldin-Meadow, S. (1998). Why people gesture when they speak.Nature,396, 228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannerod, M. (1997).The cognitive neuroscience of action. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, W. A., Dark, V. J., &Jacoby, L. L. (1985). Perceptual fluency and recognition judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juarrero, A. (1999).Dynamics in action: Intentional behavior as a complex system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaschak, M. P., &Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension.Journal of Memory & Language,43, 508–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh, D., &Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action.Cognitive Science,18, 513–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S. M. (1994).Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S. M., Pascual-Leone, A., Felician, O., &Camposano, S. (1999). The role of area 17 in visual imagery: Convergent evidence from PET and rTMS.Science,284, 167–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, R. M. (1998). Why do we gesture when we speak?Current Directions in Psychological Science,7, 54–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., &Johnson, M. (1980).Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., &Johnson, M. (1999).Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. (1987, 1991).Foundations of cognitive grammar (2 vols.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leakey, R. (1994).The origin of humankind. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. B., &Dietrich, E. (2000). In defense of representation.Cognitive Psychology,40, 138–171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mataric, M. (1991). Navigating with a rat brain: A neurobiologically inspired model for robot spatial representation. In J.-A. Meyer & S. Wilson (Eds.),From animals to animats (pp.169–175). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murata, A., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Raos, V., &Rizzolatti, G. (1997). Object representation in the ventral premotor cortex (area F5) of the monkey.Journal of Neurophysiology,78, 2226–2230.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ohlsson, S. (1999). Anchoring language in reality: Observations on reference and representation.Discourse Processes,28, 93–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Regan, J. K. (1992). Solving the “real” mysteries of visual perception: The world as an outside memory.Canadian Journal of Psychology,46, 461–488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, L. M., Fox, P. T., Downs, J. H., Glass, T., Hirsch, T. B., Martin, C. C., Jerabek, P. A., &Lancaster, J. L. (1995). Use of implicit motor imagery for visual shape discrimination as revealed by PET.Nature,375, 54–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pessoa, L., Thompson, E., &Noë, A. (1998). Finding out about fillingin: A guide to perceptual completion for visual science and the philosophy of perception.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,21, 723–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeifer, R., &Scheier, C. (1999).Understanding intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Port, R. F., &van Gelder, T. (1995).Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, W. (1987). Ideo-motor action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 47–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1970). Is semantics possible? In H. E. Kiefer & M. K. Munitz (Eds.),Language, belief and metaphysics (pp.50–63). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R., &Espenschied, K. (1993). Control of a hexapod robot using a biologically inspired neural network. In R. Beer, R. Ritzman, & T. McKenna (Eds.),Biological neural networks in invertebrate neuroethology and robotics (pp. 365–381). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisberg, D. (Ed.) (1992). Auditory imagery. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rips, L. (1989). Similarity, typicality, and categorization. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.),Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 21–59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saito, F., &Fukuda, T. (1994). Two link robot brachiation with connectionist Q-learning. In D. Cliff (Ed.),From animals to animats 3 (pp.309–314). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.Psychological Review,84, 1–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiffrin, R. M., &Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.Psychological Review,84, 127–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, D. J., &Levin, D. T. (1997). Change blindness.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,1, 261–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, C. (1997). Conceptualizing a sunset ≠ using a sunset as a discriminative stimulus.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,20, 37–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steels, L., &Brooks, R. (1995).The artificial life route to artificial intelligence: Building embodied, situated agents. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, L. (1994). Imagination and situated cognition.Journal of Experimental Theoretical Artificial Intelligence,6, 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talmy, L. (2000).Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. I. Conceptual structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, E., &Smith, L. B. (1994).A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (1998). Cognitive linguistics. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.),A companion to cognitive science (pp. 477–487). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M., &Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,24, 830–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uexküll, J. von (1934). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men. In C. H. Schiller (Ed.),Instinctive behavior: The development of modern concept (pp. 5–80). New York: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uleman, J., &Bargh, J. (Eds.) (1989).Unintended thought. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T., &Port, R. (1995). It’s about time: An overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In R. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.),Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition(pp. 1–43). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vera, A. H., &Simon, H. A. (1993). Situated action: A symbolic interpretation.Cognitive Science,17, 7–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mediated action. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.),A companion to cognitive science (pp. 518–525). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiles, J., &Dartnall, T. (1999).Perspectives on cognitive science: Theories, experiments, and foundations. Stamford, CT: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2001a). The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 44–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2001b). Perceiving imitatible stimuli: Consequences of isomorphism between input and output.Psychological Bulletin,127, 543–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., &Emmorey, K. (1997). A visuospatial “phonological loop” in working memory: Evidence from American Sign Language.Memory & Cognition,25, 313–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M., &Emmorey, K. (1998). A “word length effect” for sign language: Further evidence for the role of language in structuring working memory.Memory & Cognition,26, 584–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A. (1999). Embodied cognition, perceptual symbols, and situation models.Discourse Processes,28, 81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of California, 95064, Santa Cruz, CA

    Margaret Wilson

Authors
  1. Margaret Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret Wilson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilson, M. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 625–636 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322

Download citation

  • Received: 12 September 2000

  • Accepted: 05 October 2001

  • Issue Date: December 2002

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Time Pressure
  • Implicit Memory
  • Cognitive Architecture
  • Early Human
  • Situate Cognition
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not logged in - 89.238.176.4

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.