Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39383206›Full record

ReviewAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2024

The links between experiential learning and 4E cognition.

Angélique Lebert, Óscar Vilarroya

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The links between experiential learning and 4E cognition.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2024
    Review
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.

Angélique LebertUnitat de Recerca en Neurociència Cognitiva, Departament de Psiquiatria i Medicina Legal, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6813-111X
Óscar VilarroyaUnitat de Recerca en Neurociència Cognitiva, Departament de Psiquiatria i Medicina Legal, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8285-5624

Funding

Fundación Tatiana 2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we explore the connections between two distinct approaches: experiential learning (EL) and 4E cognition. EL emphasizes the role of concrete experiences as the building blocks of learning, whereas 4E cognition views cognition as arising from the interactions that an individual has with their physical and social environment. Despite their divergent theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and interests, we argue that both frameworks share a common vision of cognition and that their integration could mutually enhance their respective fields. This article outlines the historical origins and underlying assumptions of both frameworks, highlighting the potential links that can be established between them. Specifically, we explore the significance of embodiment, embeddedness, extended cognition, and enactive processes in learning and cognition. To bridge these frameworks, we propose employing the concept of "concrete experience" as an active engagement of individuals with their physical and social surroundings. By encompassing the essential aspects assigned to concrete experiences in EL, as well as the embodiment, situatedness, extended cognition, and enactive features of 4E cognition, this notion serves as a unifying element. Ultimately, the article suggests that combining the insights from EL and 4E cognition can offer a richer, more holistic understanding of representation.

Indexed as

CognitionProblem-Based LearningHumansLearning4E cognitionconcrete experienceembeddedembodiedenactedexperiential learningextendedneural representation

Identifiers

PMID39383206
PMCPMC11580775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.