ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2018
A Peircean account of concepts: grounding abstraction in phylogeny through a comparative neuroscientific perspective.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- The body in language, the language beyond the body: embrainment and graded embodiment in the evolution and use of language.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Dynamics of language grounding: on the time course, durability, adaptability, and vulnerability of embodied effects.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- The role of motor inhibition in implicit negation processing: two Go/No-Go behavioral studies.Psychological research · 2024Article
- Abstract concepts and simulated competition.Psychological research · 2024Article
- Modality-Specificity is not a Necessary Condition for Grounded Semantic Cognition: Commentary on.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2024Article
- Is motor inhibition involved in the processing of sentential negation? An assessment via the Stop-Signal Task.Psychological research · 2023Article
- Bounded rationality, enactive problem solving, and the neuroscience of social interaction.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Tracing embodied word production in persons with Parkinson's disease in distinct motor conditions.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- On the Embodiment of Negation in Italian Sign Language: An Approach Based on Multiple Representation Theories.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Affective Saturation Index: A Lexical Measure of Affect.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The phase space of meaning model of psychopathology: A computer simulation modelling study.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Future of Words: Language and the Challenge of Abstract Concepts.Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- Steps Towards a Unified Theory of Psychopathology: The Phase Space of Meaning Model.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2020Article
- Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The nature of concepts has always been a hotly debated topic in both philosophy and psychology and, more recently, also in cognitive neuroscience. Different accounts have been proposed of what concepts are. These accounts reflect deeply different conceptions of how the human mind works. In the last decades, two diametrically opposed theories of human cognition have been discussed and empirically investigated: the Computational Theory of Mind, on the one hand (Fodor 1983
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.