Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39155716›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024

Anthropofabrication and the redressing of memory: an embodied approach to comparative cognition.

Bas Van Woerkum, Louise Barrett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 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. Embodied cognitive evolution and the limits of convergence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  2. Minds in movement: embodied cognition in the age of artificial intelligence.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    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.

Bas Van WoerkumFaculty of Philosophy, Radboud University , Nijmegen 6525 XZ, The Netherlands.
Louise BarrettDepartment of Psychology, University of Lethbridge , Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 4R3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1841-2997

Funding

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

On what basis do researchers posit that humans and other animals share cognitive capacities? We argue that such claims are not based on inherent, pre-existing similarities, but rather emerge through a two-step process, which we will call 'anthropofabrication'. In the initial stage, embodied action-based strategies and environmental context in human studies are ignored owing to the need for measurement and quantification. Consequently, cognitive terms become disconnected from the context to which we apply them, and human classificatory cognitive terms are transformed into broad explanatory terms, assumed to be 'species-neutral'. The second phase entails translating and applying these generalized explanatory terms to specific nonverbal animals in ways that serve to further cloak differences between animals and other species. Here, again, researchers selectively discard contextual information to facilitate the comparison with humans. To limit anthropofabrication, we should (re)acknowledge that cognitive abilities are not species-neutral and cannot be detached from embodied action, perception and their context of occurrence. We illustrate our points about anthropofabrication using the example of memory research. This article is part of the theme issue 'Minds in movement: embodied cognition in the age of artificial intelligence'.

Indexed as

CognitionMemoryAnimalsHumanscomparative psychologyembodimentepisodic memoryexperimental designsituated cognition

Identifiers

PMID39155716
PMCPMC11529621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.