Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38806790›Full record

ReviewPsychonomic bulletin & review2024

Invariant representations in abstract concept grounding - the physical world in grounded cognition.

Jannis Friedrich, Martin H Fischer, Markus Raab

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Jannis FriedrichGerman Sport University Cologne, Germany, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany. j.friedrich@dshs-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7513-0000
Martin H FischerPsychology Department, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24-25, House 14 D - 14476, Potsdam-Golm, Germany.
Markus RaabGerman Sport University Cologne, Germany, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft FI 1915/12-1 (Fischer)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Grounded cognition states that mental representations of concepts consist of experiential aspects. For example, the concept "cup" consists of the sensorimotor experiences from interactions with cups. Typical modalities in which concepts are grounded are: The sensorimotor system (including interoception), emotion, action, language, and social aspects. Here, we argue that this list should be expanded to include physical invariants (unchanging features of physical motion; e.g., gravity, momentum, friction). Research on physical reasoning consistently demonstrates that physical invariants are represented as fundamentally as other grounding substrates, and therefore should qualify. We assess several theories of concept representation (simulation, conceptual metaphor, conceptual spaces, predictive processing) and their positions on physical invariants. We find that the classic grounded cognition theories, simulation and conceptual metaphor theory, have not considered physical invariants, while conceptual spaces and predictive processing have. We conclude that physical invariants should be included into grounded cognition theories, and that the core mechanisms of simulation and conceptual metaphor theory are well suited to do this. Furthermore, conceptual spaces and predictive processing are very promising and should also be integrated with grounded cognition in the future.

Indexed as

CognitionConcept FormationHumansMetaphorPsychological TheoryThinkingConceptsEmbodimentPhysical invariantsPredictive processing

Identifiers

PMID38806790
PMCPMC11680661

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.