ReviewCognitive processing2015
Language as grist to the mill of cognition.
Review in Cognitive processing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Mindfulness Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2024Review
- Symbol ungrounding: what the successes (and failures) of large language models reveal about human cognition.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Rethinking the role of language in embodied cognition.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Words have a weight: language as a source of inner grounding and flexibility in abstract concepts.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Exploring self-generated thoughts in a resting state with natural language processing.Behavior research methods · 2022Article
- Deep language space neural network for classifying mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer-type dementia.PloS one · 2018Article
- On the origins of endogenous thoughts.Cognitive processing · 2017Article
- Predicting probable Alzheimer's disease using linguistic deficits and biomarkers.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a growing consensus that natural language plays a significant role in our cognitive lives. However, this role of language is not adequately characterised. In this paper, I investigate the relationship between natural language and thinking and argue that thinking operates largely according to associationistic rules. Furthermore, I show that language is neither restricted to interfacing between a 'Language of Thought' and the conscious level, nor is it constitutively involved in thinking. Unlike available alternatives, the suggested view predicts and accommodates a large battery of empirical evidence. Furthermore, it avoids problems that associationistic views traditionally faced, e.g. problems of propositional thinking and compositionality of thought.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25976728What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.