1 / 16

Grounded cognition. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.

Grounded cognition. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. Grounded theories versus amodal representations. Recapitulation of the sensory environment through simulation. Simulation is different mental imagery. Embodied versus Grounded Cognition:

raina
Download Presentation

Grounded cognition. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grounded cognition.Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. • Grounded theories versus amodal representations. • Recapitulation of the sensory environment through simulation. • Simulation is different mental imagery. • Embodied versus Grounded Cognition: • Mistaken assumption that bodily states are necessary for cognition. • Correct assumption that conceptual representation is connected to perceptual experience.

  2. Misconceptions about grounding. • Grounded theories are not strictly empiricist. • Grounded theories are seen as passive information capture, void of computation. • Grounded theories utilize more than sensory motor experience. • Grounded theories do not depend on bodily states or complete simulation of experience.

  3. Theories of grounding. • Cognitive Linguistic (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980): • Abstract concepts are built metaphorically through percepts. • Boroditsky, L. & Ramscar, M. (2002). The Roles of Body and Mind in Abstract Thought. Psychological Science, 13, 185-189.

  4. Boroditsky and Ramscar. • Wednesdays meeting is moved forward two days. What day is the meeting now? • Monday (time moving or allomotive). • Friday (self moving or egomotive).

  5. Boroditsky and Ramscar.

  6. Boroditsky and Ramscar.

  7. Boroditsky and Ramscar.

  8. Theories of grounding. • Cognitive Linguistic (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). • Situated Action Theories (Clark, 1997): • Perception and action are bound together during goal achievement. • Seems like the action affordances of Glenberg (1979), but uses dynamic systems to explain representation.

  9. Theories of grounding. • Cognitive Linguistic (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). • Situated Action Theories (Clark, 1997). • Simulation Theory: • Perceptual Symbol Systems (Barsalou, 1999). • The interaction of language and simulation. • Memory Theories (Glenberg, 1997). • Social Simulation Theories (Goldman, 2006)‏ • Mirror circuits and the inference of intention. • To empathize, we simulate our own emotional states.

  10. Evidence of grounding. • There’s a lot of it… but some examples: • Perception action coordination (e.g., action simulations speed object recognition, reaching and grasping, etc). • Perception of space is highly phenomenological. • Property verification based on sensory attributes (HORSE and MANE). • Neuropsychological evidence (e.g., visual lesions  animal naming, motor lesions  tool naming). • Neuroimaging (e.g., activation of sensory areas in property identification).

  11. Evidence of Grounding. • Reasoning: • Physical Reasoning • Abstract Reasoning • Goldstone, R., Landy, D., & Son, J. Y. (in press). A well grounded education: The role of perception in science and mathematics. Draft prepared for Symbols, Embodiment, and Meaning Debate, held December 16-18, 2005.

  12. Goldstone et al. 3 * 4 + 2 * 6 = ? 3 * 4 + 2 * 6 = ?

More Related