ArticleJournal of cognition2020
Challenges and Opportunities for Grounding Cognition.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 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
61 citing papers in PubMed.
- Movement-Anchored Emotional Memory: An Embodied Neuropsychological Framework.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Focused and distributed: Diverse attentional profiles in pigeon category learning.Learning & behavior · 2026Article
- Beyond Perceptual Heuristics: A Biosemiotic Reinterpretation of Gestalt Laws in Human Meaning Construction.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2026Article
- Context-dependent motor-semantic interactions: evidence from dual-task paradigms in semantic fluency.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Meaning-Events: The Sensorimotor Foundation for Lifespan Development of Meaning.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Restricting facial mimicry does not impair emotion recognition or influence the evaluation of human affect vocalizations and instrumental sounds.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Affective norms for texts in Rioplatense Spanish (ANET-RS): Adaptation and cross-cultural variations in emotional explicitness, gender, and age.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Collection of body-object interaction ratings for 5,637 Japanese words.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Functional sufficiency in VR: achieving non-corporeal embodiment.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2026Article
- Action channel switching costs in the comprehension of concrete and abstract mandarin verbs.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- A study of how immersion and interactivity in MoCap mediate psychological affordances and drive conceptual learning in computer animation courses.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- GenAI-mediated immersive dialogue practice in liaison interpreting: a mixed-methods investigation of cognitive-affective outcomes and interactional processes.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The function(s) of consciousness revisited: insights from a modular/constitutive model using vision as a test case.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Multimedia learning with multiple modalities beyond hearing and sight.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- ISEED: an always-on cognitive architecture for experience-driven interaction-oriented humanoid robots.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2026Article
- Article
- SocioLex-CZ: Normative estimates for socio-semantic dimensions of meaning for 2,999 words and 1,000 images.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Refining the multimodality of semantic representations.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Article
- How Quotation Types Shape Classic Novel Reading in Chinese: A Comparison Between Human Eye-Movements and Large Language Models.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Semantic Representational Strength in the Precuneus and Lateral ATL Predicts Successful Factual Learning.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
According to the grounded perspective, cognition emerges from the interaction of classic cognitive processes with the modalities, the body, and the environment. Rather than being an autonomous impenetrable module, cognition incorporates these other domains intrinsically into its operation. The Situated Action Cycle offers one way of understanding how the modalities, the body, and the environment become integrated to ground cognition. Seven challenges and opportunities are raised for this perspective: (1) How does cognition emerge from the Situated Action Cycle and in turn support it? (2) How can we move beyond simply equating embodiment with action, additionally establishing how embodiment arises in the autonomic, neuroendocrine, immune, cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive, and integumentary systems? (3) How can we better understand the mechanisms underlying multimodal simulation, its functions across the Situated Action Cycle, and its integration with other representational systems? (4) How can we develop and assess theoretical accounts of symbolic processing from the grounded perspective (perhaps using the construct of simulators)? (5) How can we move beyond the simplistic distinction between concrete and abstract concepts, instead addressing how concepts about the external and internal worlds pattern to support the Situated Action Cycle? (6) How do individual differences emerge from different populations of situational memories as the Situated Action Cycle manifests itself differently across individuals? (7) How can constructs from grounded cognition provide insight into the replication and generalization crises, perhaps from a quantum perspective on mechanisms (as exemplified by simulators).
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.