Building to discover: A common coding model

Cognitive Science

Volumn 33, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1059-1086

  Chandrasekharan, Sanjay ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Common coding; Distributed cognition; Scientific cognition; Scientific visualization; Simulative model based reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953175638     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01050.x     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Adamson, R. (1952). Functional fixedness as related to problem solving: A repetition of three experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 288-291.
2. Alac, M., & Hutchins, E. (2004). I see what you are saying: Action as cognition in fMRI brain mapping practice. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3), 629-661.
3. Banzhaf, W. (1994). Self-organization in a system of binary strings. In R. Brooks & P. Maes (Eds.), Artificial life IV (pp. 109-119). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
5. Barsalou, L., Simmons, W., Barbey, A., & Wilson, C. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modalityspecific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 84-91.
6. Becvar, L., Hollan, J., & Hutchins, E. (2007). Representational gestures as cognitive artifacts for developing theory in a scientific laboratory. In C. Halverson & M. Ackerson (Eds.), Artifacts in workplace practice (pp. 117-143). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
7. Bergen, B., Chang, N., & Narayan, S. (2004). Simulated action in an embodied construction grammar. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 108-113). Chicago. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Bosbach, S., Cole, J., Prinz, W., & Knoblich, G. (2005). Understanding another's expectation from action: The role of peripheral sensation. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1295-1297.
9. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2002). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106, 3-22.
10. Brass, M., & Heyes, C. (2005). Imitation: Is cognitive neuroscience solving the correspondence problem? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 489-495.
11. Casile, A., & Giese, M. (2006). Non-visual motor learning influences the recognition of biological motion. Current Biology, 16(1), 69-74.
12. Chandrasekharan, S., & Osbeck, L. (in press). Rethinking situatedness: Environment structure in the time of the common code. Theory & Psychology.
13. Chandrasekharan, S., & Stewart, T. (2007). The origin of epistemic structures and proto-representations. Adaptive Behavior, 15(3), 329-353.
14. Craig, D. L., Nersessian, N. J., & Catrambone, R. (2002). Perceptual simulation in analogical problem solving. In L. Magnani & N. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, and values (pp. 167- 191). New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.
15. Cree, G., McRae, K., & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 371-414.
16. Decety, J. (2002). Is there such a thing as a functional equivalence between imagined, observed and executed actions. In A. Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds.), The imitative mind: Development, evolution and brain bases (pp. 291-310). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17. Dunn, J., & Clark, M. (1999). Life music: The sonification of proteins. Leonardo, 32(1), 25-32.
18. Edwards, L., Peng, Y., & Reggia, J. (1998). Computational models for the formation of protocell structure. Artificial Life, 4(1), 61-77.
19. Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., Buccino, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: A TMS study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 399-402.
20. Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2000). Visuomotor neurons: Ambiguity of the discharge or "motor" perception? International Journal of Psychophysiology, 35, 165-177.
21. Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (1995). Motor facilitation during action observation: A magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73, 2608-2611.
22. Farne, A., Iriki, A., & Làdavas, E. (2005). Shaping multisensory action-space with tools: Evidence from patients with cross-modal extinction. Neuropsychologia, 43, 238-248.
23. Fiorio, M., Tinazzi, M., & Agiloti, S. M. (2006). Selective impairment of hand mental rotation in patients with focal hand dystonia. Brain, 129, 47-54.
24. Gallese, V., Ferrari, P., Kohler, E., & Fogassi, L. (2002). The eyes, the hand and the mind: Behavioral and neurophysiological aspects of social cognition. In M. Bekoff, C. Allen, & M. Burghardt (Eds.), The cognitive animal (pp. 451-462). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. German, T., & Barrett, H. (2005). Functional fixedness in a technologically sparse culture. Psychological Science, 16, 1-5.
26. German, T., & Defeyter, M. (2000). Immunity to functional fixedness in young children. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7(4), 707-712.
27. Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
29. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30. Hegarty, M. (2004). Mechanical reasoning as mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 280-285.
31. Heyes, C. (2005). Imitation by association. In S. Hurley & N. Chater (Eds.), Perspectives on imitation: From cognitive neuroscience to social science (pp. 157-174). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Holt, L., & Beilock, S. (2006). Expertise and its embodiment: Examining the impact of sensorimotor skill expertise on the representation of action-related text. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 694-701.
33. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878.
34. Hurley, S., & Chater, N. (2005). Perspectives on imitation: From neuroscience to social science. Imitation, human development and culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Hutchins, E. (1995a). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288.
36. Hutchins, E. (1995b). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37. Iriki, A., Tanaka, M., & Iwamura, Y. (1996). Coding of modified body schema during tool use by macaque postcentral neurons. Neuroreport, 7, 2325-2330.
38. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt.
39. Jeannerod, M. (1997). The cognitive neuroscience of action. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
40. Jeannerod, M. (2006). From volition to agency: The mechanism of action recognition and its failures. In N. Sebanz & W. Prinz (Eds.), Disorders of volition (pp. 175-192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-208). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Kirlik, A. (1998). The design of everyday life environments. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 702-712). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
43. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18, 513- 549.
44. Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Psychological Science, 15(3), 99-104.
45. Kosslyn, S. (1994). Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Langton, C. G. (1984). Self-reproduction in cellular automata. Physica D, 10, 135-144.
47. Langton, C. (1990). Computation at the edge of chaos: Phase transitions and emergent computation. Physica D, 42, 12-37.
48. Lenhard, J. (2004). Surprised by a nanowire: Simulation, control, and understanding. Philosophy of Science, 73, 605-616.
49. Lenhard, J. (2006). Simulation and a revolution in modelling style: From hierarchical to network-like integration. In J. Lenhard, G. Küppers, & T. Shinn (Eds.), Simulation: Pragmatic construction of reality (pp. 89- 106). Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 25. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
50. Martin, T., & Schwartz, D. (2005). Physically distributed learning: Adapting and reinterpreting physical environments in the development of fraction concepts. Cognitive Science, 29(4), 587-625.
51. Millet, G., Lecuyer, A., Burkhardt, J., Haliyo, D., & Regnier, S. (2008). Improving perception and understanding of nanoscale phenomena using haptics and visual analogy. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5024, 847- 856.
52. Nersessian, N. (2002a). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133-153). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
53. Nersessian, N. (2002b). Maxwell and "the Method of Physical Analogy": Model-based reasoning, generic abstraction, and conceptual change. In D. Malament (Ed.), Essays in the history and philosophy of science and mathematics (pp. 129-166). Lasalle, IL: Open Court.
54. Nersessian, N. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
55. Nersessian, N., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2009). Hybrid analogies in conceptual innovation in science. Cognitive Systems Research, 10 (3) 178-188. Special Issue on Analogy.
56. Nersessian, N., Kurz-Milcke, E., Newstetter, W., & Davies, J. (2003). Research laboratories as evolving distributed cognitive systems. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 857-862). Boston: Cognitive Science Society.
57. Nersessian, N. J., & Patton, C. (2009). Model-based reasoning in interdisciplinary engineering. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 687-718). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
58. Newstetter, W., Kurz-milcke, E., & Nersessian, N. (2004). Cognitive partnerships on the bench tops. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 372-379). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. Noe, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60. Oztop, E., Kawato, M., & Arbib, M. (2006). Mirror neurons and imitation: A computationally guided review. Neural Networks, 19, 254-271.
61. Prinz, W. (1992). Why don't we perceive our brain states? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 1-20.
62. Prinz, W. (2005) An ideomotor approach to imitation. In S. Hurley & N. Chater (Eds.), Perspectives on imitation: From neuroscience to social science, vol. 1 (pp. 141-156). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63. Prusinkiewicz, P., Lindenmayer, A., & Hanan, J. (1988). Developmental models of Herbaceous plants for computer imagery purposes. Computer Graphics, 22(4), 141-150.
64. Reynolds, C. (1987). Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed behavioral model. Computer Graphics, 21(4), 25-34.
65. Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Towards history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
66. Runions, A., Fuhrer, M., Lane, B., Federl, P., Rollang-Lagan, A., & Prusinkiewicz, P. (2005). Modeling and visualization of leaf venation patterns. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 24(3), 702-711.
67. Schubotz, R. (2007). Prediction of external events with our motor system: Towards a new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 211-218.
68. Schubotz, R., & von Cramon, D. (2004). Sequences of abstract non-biological stimuli share ventral premotor cortex with action observation and imagery. Journal of Neuroscience, 24(24), 5467-5474.
69. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1234-1246.
70. Sims, K. (1994). Evolving virtual creatures. Computer Graphics, 8, 15-22.
71. Sincell, M. (2000). NanoManipulator lets chemists go mano a mano with molecules. Science, 290, 1530.
72. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
73. Vingerhoets, G., de Lange, F., Vandemaele, P., Deblaere, K., & Achten, E. (2002). Motor imagery in mental rotation: An FMRI study. Neuroimage, 17, 1623-1633.
74. Viviani, P. (2002). Motor competence in the perception of dynamic events: a tutorial. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (pp. 406-442). New York: Oxford University Press.
75. Welsh, T., & Elliott, D. (2004). Movement trajectories in the presence of a distracting stimulus: Evidence for a response activation model of selective reaching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology - Section A, 57, 1031-1057.
76. Welsh, T., Lyons, J., Weeks, D., Anson, G., Chua, R., Mendoza, J., & Elliott, D. (2007). Within-and betweennervous system inhibition of return: Observation is as good as performance. Psychonomic Bullettin and Review, 14(5), 950-956.
77. Wexler, M., Kosslyn, S., & Berthoz, A. (1998). Motor processes in mental rotation. Cognition, 68, 77-94.
78. Wilson, N., & Gibbs, R. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31(4), 721-731.
79. Winsberg, E. (2003). Simulated experiments: Methodology for a virtual world. Philosophy of Science, 70, 105- 125.
80. Winsberg, E. (2006a). Handshaking your way to the top: Simulation at the nanoscale. Philosophy of Science, 73, 582-594.
81. Winsberg, E. (2006b). Models of success vs. the success of the models: reliability without truth. Synthese, 152(1), 1-19.
82. Wohlschlager, A. (2001). Mental object rotation and the planning of hand movements. Perception and Psychophysics, 63(4), 709-718.
83. Wolff, P. (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 82-111.