Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20333486›Full record

ReviewIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2010

Biological roots of foresight and mental time travel.

Aaro Toomela

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Quo Vadis, Cultural Psychology? Time to Become Psychology. Again.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. What are Higher Psychological Functions?Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2016
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Aaro ToomelaInstitute of Psychology, Tallinn University, Narva mnt. 25, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia. aaro.toomela@ut.ee

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies of future-oriented capacities today are based on Cartesian epistemology. In this paper it is suggested that, following this epistemology, not only the answers to scientific questions, but even the questions themselves should be replaced. Particularly, instead of asking whether some form of future-oriented cognition might be unique to humans, and what are the "causes" of such capacities; it might be more productive to ask, in the framework of the structural-systemic epistemology, what level of analysis corresponds to future-oriented capacities, and in what form their structure is organized. The structural-systemic theory of functional systems by the Russian physiologist Piotr Anokhin is described, where it is shown that future orientation is the central characteristic of living systems. Furthermore, it is an essential property of all life-forms as wholes. Therefore understanding of future-oriented capacities requires description of what Anokhin called functional systems, systems that can be found in all life forms. Starting from Anokhin's structural-systemic epistemology, it is possible to go further and build a developmental theory of different kinds of future-orientation. It is proposed that future-orientation as a characteristic of life has evolved into psychical future-oriented cognition. From there, in turn, qualitatively novel forms of semiotically mediated future-oriented processes have emerged. Building a theory of future-oriented capacities in this direction seems to be scientifically more productive than continuing the theory-building following the fundamentally limited Cartesian epistemology.

Indexed as

ForecastingCognitive ScienceHumansImaginationMental Processes

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.