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.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Dynamic Approaches Have Taught Us About Cognition and What They Have Not: On Values in Motion and the Importance of Replicable Forms.Topics in cognitive science · 2026Review
- 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 · 2024Article
- Editorial concepts in interaction: social engagement and inner experiences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
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
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
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.