Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36571127›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2023

Is love an abstract concept? A view of concepts from an interaction-based perspective.

Joanna Rączaszek-Leonardi, Julian Zubek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Behaviour settings as a way to order types of situations for the study of speech aids.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  3. Editorial concepts in interaction: social engagement and inner experiences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Joanna Rączaszek-LeonardiHuman Interactivity and Language Lab, Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Mazovian 00-183, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3243-1468
Julian ZubekHuman Interactivity and Language Lab, Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Mazovian 00-183, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4842-5609

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research concerning concepts in the cognitive sciences has been dominated by the information-processing approach, which has resulted in a certain narrowing of the range of questions and methods of investigation. Recent trends have sought to broaden the scope of such research, but they have not yet been integrated within a theoretical framework that would allow us to reconcile new perspectives with the insights already obtained. In this paper, we focus on the processes involved in early concept acquisition and demonstrate that certain aspects of these processes remain largely understudied. These aspects include the primacy of movement and coordination with others within a structured social environment as well as the importance of first-person experiences pertaining to perception and action. We argue that alternative approaches to cognition, such as ecological psychology, enactivism and interactivism, are helpful for foregrounding these understudied areas. These approaches can complement the extant research concerning concepts to help us obtain a more comprehensive view of knowledge structures, thus providing us with a new perspective on recurring problems, suggesting novel questions and enriching our methodological toolbox. This article is part of the theme issue 'Concepts in interaction: social engagement and inner experiences'.

Indexed as

Concept FormationLoveCognitionCognitive ScienceHumansKnowledgeconceptsecological psychologyembodied cognitionsocial interaction

Identifiers

PMID36571127
PMCPMC9791471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.