Six views of embodied cognition

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.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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 

  4. 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 

  5. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  37. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  43. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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 

  55. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  62. 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 

  63. 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 

  64. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  67. 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 

  68. 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 

  69. 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 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  77. 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 

  78. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  80. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 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 

  87. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

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

Keywords

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