Getting interaction theory (IT) together: Integrating developmental, phenomenological, enactive, and dynamical approaches to social interaction

Interaction Studies

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 436-468

  Froese, Tom ^a   Gallagher, Shaun ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^b University of Memphis   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive science; Dynamical systems theory; Embodied cognition; Enactive approach; Evolutionary robotics; Interaction theory; Phenomenology; Social cognition; Theory of mind

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871005983     PISSN: 15720373     EISSN: 15720381     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/is.13.3.06fro     Document Type: Article

References (165)

1. Prato-Previde, E., Custance, D.M., Spiezio, C., & Sabatini, F. (2003). Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth's strange situation. Behaviour, 140, 225-254.
2. Prato-Previde, E., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2008). Is your choice my choice? The owners' effect on pet dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task. Animal Cognition, 11(1), 167-74. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0102-7.
3. Robinson, I. (1995). The waltham book of human-Animal interaction: Benefits and responsibilities of pet ownership (pp. 1-148). Kidlington: Pergamon Press.
4. Rooney, N.J., Bradshaw, J.W.S., & Robinson, I.H. (2001). Do dogs respond to play signals given by humans? Animal Behaviour, 61(4), 715-722. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1661.
5. Serpell, J.A. (1996). Evidence for an association between pet behavior and owner attachment levels. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47 (1-2), 49-60. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)01010-6.
6. Serpell, J.A. (2003). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection-Beyond the "Cute Response." Society and Animals, 11(1), 83-100. doi: 10.1163/156853003321618864.
7. Syrdal, D.S., Koay, K.L., Gácsi, M., Walters, M.L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2010). Video prototyping of dog-inspired non-verbal affective communication for an appearance constrained robot. 9th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Viareggio, Italy.
8. Thrun, S. (2004). Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 9-24. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2-2.
9. Tinya, F., Márialigeti, S., Király, I., Németh, B., & Ódor, P. (2009). The effect of light conditions on herbs, bryophytes and seedlings of temperate mixed forests in rség, Western Hungary. Plant Ecology, 204(1), 69-81. doi: 10.1007/s11258-008-9566-z.
10. Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V. (1997). Dog-human relationship affects problem solving behavior in the dog. Anthrozoös, 10(4), 214-224. doi: 10.2752/089279397787000987.
11. Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Csányi, V., & Dóka, A. (1998). Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application of Ainsworth's (1969) Strange Situation Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112(3), 219-229. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.112.3.219.
12. Turcsán, B., Kubinyi, E., Virányi, Z., & Range, F. (2011). Personality matching in owner-dog dyads. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 6(1), 77. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.09.016.
13. Wedl, M., Schöberl, I., Bauer, B., Day, J., & Kotrschal, K. (2010). Relational factors affecting dog social attraction to human partners. Interaction Studies, 11(3), 482-503. doi: 10.1075/is.11.3.09wed.
14. Wickler, W. (1976). The ethological analysis of attachment: Sociometric, motivational and sociophysiological aspects. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 42(1), 12-28.
15. Wollenberg, A.L. (1977). Redundancy analysis an alternative for canonical correlation analysis. Psychometrika, 42(2), 207-219. doi: 10.1007/BF02294050.
16. Prato-Previde, E., Custance, D.M., Spiezio, C., & Sabatini, F. (2003). Is the dog-human relationship an attachment bond? An observational study using Ainsworth's strange situation. Behaviour, 140, 225-254.
17. Prato-Previde, E., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2008). Is your choice my choice? The owners' effect on pet dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task. Animal Cognition, 11(1), 167-74. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0102-7.
18. Robinson, I. (1995). The waltham book of human-Animal interaction: Benefits and responsibilities of pet ownership (pp. 1-148). Kidlington: Pergamon Press.
19. Rooney, N.J., Bradshaw, J.W.S., & Robinson, I.H. (2001). Do dogs respond to play signals given by humans? Animal Behaviour, 61(4), 715-722. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1661.
20. Serpell, J.A. (1996). Evidence for an association between pet behavior and owner attachment levels. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47 (1-2), 49-60. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)01010-6.
21. Serpell, J.A. (2003). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection-Beyond the "Cute Response." Society and Animals, 11(1), 83-100. doi: 10.1163/156853003321618864.
22. Syrdal, D.S., Koay, K.L., Gácsi, M., Walters, M.L., & Dautenhahn, K. (2010). Video prototyping of dog-inspired non-verbal affective communication for an appearance constrained robot. 9th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication. Viareggio, Italy.
23. Thrun, S. (2004). Toward a framework for human-robot interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 9-24. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci1901&2-2.
24. Tinya, F., Márialigeti, S., Király, I., Németh, B., & Ódor, P. (2009). The effect of light conditions on herbs, bryophytes and seedlings of temperate mixed forests in rség, Western Hungary. Plant Ecology, 204(1), 69-81. doi: 10.1007/s11258-008-9566-z.
25. Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V. (1997). Dog-human relationship affects problem solving behavior in the dog. Anthrozoös, 10(4), 214-224. doi: 10.2752/089279397787000987.
26. Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., Csányi, V., & Dóka, A. (1998). Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): A new application of Ainsworth's (1969) Strange Situation Test. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112(3), 219-229. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.112.3.219.
27. Turcsán, B., Kubinyi, E., Virányi, Z., & Range, F. (2011). Personality matching in owner-dog dyads. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 6(1), 77. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2010.09.016.
28. Wedl, M., Schöberl, I., Bauer, B., Day, J., & Kotrschal, K. (2010). Relational factors affecting dog social attraction to human partners. Interaction Studies, 11(3), 482-503. doi: 10.1075/is.11.3.09wed.
29. Wickler, W. (1976). The ethological analysis of attachment: Sociometric, motivational and sociophysiological aspects. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 42(1), 12-28.
30. Wollenberg, A.L. (1977). Redundancy analysis an alternative for canonical correlation analysis. Psychometrika, 42(2), 207-219. doi: 10.1007/BF02294050.
31. De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2007). Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 485-507.
32. De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E.A., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441-447.
33. De Jaegher, H., & Froese, T. (2009). On the role of social interaction in individual agency. Adaptive Behavior, 17(5), 444-460.
34. Di Paolo, E.A. (2000). Behavioral coordination, structural congruence and entrainment in a simulation of acoustically coupled agents. Adaptive Behavior, 8(1), 25-46.
35. Di Paolo, E.A. (2009a). Extended life. Topoi, 28(1), 9-21.
36. Di Paolo, E.A. (2009b). Overcoming autopoiesis: An enactive detour on the way from life to society. In R. Magalhaes & R. Sanchez (Eds.), Autopoiesis in organizations and information systems (pp. 43-68). Elsevier.
37. Di Paolo, E.A., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E.A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 33-87). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
38. Di Paolo, E.A., Rohde, M., & Iizuka, H. (2008). Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing. New Ideas in Psychology, 26(2), 278-294.
39. Fiore, S.M., Elias, J., Gallagher, S., & Jentsch, F. (2008). Cognition and coordination: Applying cognitive science to understand macrocognition in human-Agent teams. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems. Norfolk, VA: HICS.
40. Fodor, J.A. (1983). Modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
41. Fong, T., Nourbakhsh, I., & Dautenhahn, K. (2003). A survey of socially interactive robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42, 143-166.
42. Frith, C.D. (2008). Social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363, 2033-2039.
43. Frith, U., & Frith, C.D. (2010). The social brain: Aallowing humans to boldly go where no other species has been. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 165-175.
44. Froese, T. (2009). Hume and the enactive approach to mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 95-133.
45. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2008). Stability of coordination requires mutuality of interaction in a model of embodied agents. In M. Asada, J.C.T. Hallam, J.-A. Meyer, & J. Tani (Eds.), From animals to animats 10: 10th international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior, SAB 2008 (pp. 52-61). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
46. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2009). Sociality and the life-mind continuity thesis. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 439-463.
47. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2010). Modeling social interaction as perceptual crossing: An investigation into the dynamics of the interaction process. Connection Science, 22(1), 43-68.
48. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2011a). The enactive approach: Theoretical sketches from cell to society. Pragmatics & Cognition, 19(1), 1-36.
49. Froese, T., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2011b). Toward minimally social behavior: Social psychology meets evolutionary robotics. In G. Kampis, I. Karsai, & E. Szathmáry (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: Darwin meets von Neumann. 10th European conference, ECAL 2009 (pp. 426-433). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
50. Froese, T., & Fuchs, T. (2012). The extended body: A case study in the neurophenomenology of social interaction. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 205-235.
51. Froese, T., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Phenomenology and artificial life: Toward a technological supplementation of phenomenological methodology. Husserl Studies, 26(2), 83-106.
52. Froese, T., Gould, C., & Barrett, A. (2011). Re-viewing from within: A commentary on first-And second-person methods in the science of consciousness. Constructivist Foundations, 6(2), 254-269.
53. Froese, T., Lenay, C., & Ikegami, T. (2012). Imitation by social interaction? Analysis of a minimal agent-based model of the correspondence problem. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 202. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00202.
54. Froese, T., Suzuki, K., Ogai, Y., & Ikegami, T. (2012). Investigating the embodied mind 'as-it-could-be' from the first-person perspective. Cognitive Computation, 4(3), 365-382.
55. Froese, T., & Ziemke, T. (2009). Enactive Artificial Intelligence: Investigating the systemic organization of life and mind. Artificial Intelligence, 173(3-4), 366-500.
56. Fuchs, T., & De Jaegher, H. (2009). Enacting intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 465-486.
57. Gallagher, S. (1997). Mutual enlightenment: Recent phenomenology in cognitive science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4(3), 195-214.
58. Gallagher, S. (2001). The practice of mind: Theory, simulation or primary interaction? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5-7), 83-108.
59. Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
60. Gallagher, S. (2007). Simulation trouble. Social Neuroscience, 2(3), 353-365.
61. Gallagher, S. (2008a). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 535-543.
62. Gallagher, S. (2008b). Intersubjectivity in perception. Continental Philosophy Review, 41, 163-178.
63. Gallagher, S. (2011). Interpretations of embodied cognition. In W. Tschacher & C. Bergomi (Eds.), The implications of embodiment: Cognition and communication (pp. 59-71). Exter, UK: Imprint Academic.
64. Gallagher, S. (2012). In defense of phenomenological approaches to social cognition: Interacting with the critics. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, doi: 10.1007/s13164-13011-10080-13161.
65. Gallagher, S. (in press). The socially extended mind. Cognitive Systems Research.
66. Gallagher, S., & Hutto, D.D. (2008). Understanding others through primary interaction and narrative practice. In J. Zlatev, P. Racine, C. Sinha, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity (pp. 17-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
67. Gallagher, S., & Meltzoff, A.N. (1996). The earliest sense of self and others: Merleau-Ponty and recent developmental studies. Philosophical Psychology, 9, 213-236.
68. Gallagher, S., & Povinelli, D.J. (2012). Enactive and behavioral abstract accounts of social understanding in chimpanzees, infants, and adults. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, doi: 10.1007/s13164-13012-10093-13164.
69. Gallagher, S., & Varela, F.J. (2003). Redrawing the map and setting the time: Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 29, 93-132.
70. Gallagher, S., & Zahavi, D. (2008). The phenomenological mind: An introduction to philosophy of mind and cognitive science. London, UK: Routledge.
71. Gallese, V. (2005). Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 23-48.
72. Gallese, V. (2009). The two sides of mimesis: Girard's mimetic theory, embodied simulation and social identification. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(4), 21-44.
73. Gallese, V. (2010). Embodied simulation and its role in intersubjectivity. In T. Fuchs, H.C. Sattel, & P. Henningsen (Eds.), The embodied self: Dimensions, coherence and disorders (pp. 78-92). Stuttgart, Germany: Schattauer.
74. Gallese, V., Keysers, C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2004). A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9), 396-403.
75. Gergely, G. (2001). The obscure object of desire: 'nearly, but clearly not, like me': Contingency preference in normal children versus children with autism. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 65, 411-426.
76. Goldman, A. (2005). Imitation, mind reading, and simulation. In S. Hurley & N. Chater (Eds.), Perspectives on imitation: From neuroscience to social science (Vol. 2, pp. 79-93). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
77. Goldman, A. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
78. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A.N. (1996). Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
79. Harvey, I., Di Paolo, E.A., Wood, R., Quinn, M., & Tuci, E.A. (2005). Evolutionary robotics: A new scientific tool for studying cognition. Artificial Life, 11(1-2), 79-98.
80. Heal, J. (1986). Replication and functionalism. In J. Butterfield (Ed.), Language, mind and logic (pp. 135-150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
81. Heath, J. (2011). Methodological individualism. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition): URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/methodological-individualism/
82. Herschbach, M. (2008). Folk psychological and phenomenological accounts of social perception. Philosophical Explorations, 11(3), 223-235.
83. Herschbach, M. (in press). On the role of social interaction in social cognition: A mechanistic alternative to enactivism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, in press.
84. Hurley, S., & Chater, N. (Eds.). (2005). Perspectives on imitation: From neuroscience to social science. Cambrige, MA: The MIT Press.
85. Husserl, E. ([1905-1920] 1973). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Erster Teil: 1905-1920. Den Haag, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
86. Hutchins, E. (2010). Enaction, imagination, and insight. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E.A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 425-450). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
87. Hutto, D.D., & Myin, E. (in press). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
88. Iizuka, H., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2007). Minimal agency detection of embodied agents. In F. Almeida e Costa, L.M. Rocha, E. Costa, I. Harvey, & A. Coutinho (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: 9th European conference, ECAL 2007 (pp. 485-494). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
89. Iizuka, H., & Ikegami, T. (2003). Adaptive coupling and intersubjectivity in simulated turn-Taking behaviour. In W. Banzhaf, T. Christaller, P. Dittrich, J.T. Kim, & J. Ziegler (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: 7th European conference, ECAL 2003 (pp. 336-345). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
90. Iizuka, H., & Ikegami, T. (2004). Adaptability and diversity in simulated turn-Taking behavior. Artificial Life, 10, 361-378.
91. Ikegami, T., & Iizuka, H. (2007a). Simulated turn-Taking and development of styles of motion. In C.L. Nehaniv & K. Dautenhahn (Eds.), Imitation and social learning in robots, humans and animals: Behavioural, social and communicative dimensions (pp. 301-322). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
92. Ikegami, T., & Iizuka, H. (2007b). Turn-Taking interaction as a cooperative and co-creative process. Infant Behavior and Development, 30(2), 278-288.
93. Issartel, J., Martin, L., & Cadopi, M. (2007). Unintended interpersonal co-ordination: 'Can we march to the beat of our own drum?'. Neuroscience Letters, 411(3), 174-179.
94. Izquierdo, E., Harvey, I., & Beer, R.D. (2008). Associative learning on a continuum in evolved dynamical neural networks. Adaptive Behavior, 16(6), 361-384.
95. Izquierdo-Torres, E., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2005). Is an embodied system ever purely reactive? In M.S. Capcarrere, A.A. Freitas, P.J. Bentley, C.G. Johnson, & J. Timmis (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: 8th European conference, ECAL 2005 (pp. 252-261). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
96. Jacob, P. (2011). The direct-perception model of empathy: A critique. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 519-540.
97. Jones, S.S. (2009). The development of imitation in infancy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364, 2325-2335.
98. Kaye, K. (1982). The mental and social life of babies: How parents create persons. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
99. Kelso, J.A.S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
100. Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
101. Keysers, C., & Fadiga, L. (2008). The mirror neuron system: New frontiers. Social Neuroscience, 3(3-4), 193-198.
102. Krueger, J. (2012). Seeing mind in action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 149-173.
103. Lee, J., Chao, C., Bobick, A.F., & Thomaz, A.L. (2012). Multi-cue contingency detection. International Journal of Social Robotics, 4, 147-161.
104. Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. (2012). Minimalist approach to perceptual interactions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(98). doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012. 00098.
105. Leslie, A.M., Friedman, O., & German, T.P. (2004). Core mechanisms in 'theory of mind'. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 528-533.
106. Lindblom, J. (2007). Minding the body: Interacting socially through embodied action. Doctoral Dissertation, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
107. Lindblom, J., & Ziemke, T. (2008). Interacting socially through embodied action. In F. Morganti, A. Carassa, & G. Riva (Eds.), Enacting intersubjectivity: A cognitive and social perspective on the study of interactions (pp. 49-63). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.
108. Lymer, J. (2011). Merleau-ponty and the affective maternal-foetal relation. Parrhesia, 13, 126-143.
109. Meltzoff, A.N., & Moore, M.K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198, 75-78.
110. Meltzoff, A.N., & Moore, M.K. (1997). Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting, 6, 179-192.
111. Meltzoff, A.N., & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (2002). The imitative mind: Development, evolution and brain bases. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
112. Merleau-Ponty, M. ([1945] 2002). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
113. Merleau-Ponty, M. ([1960] 1964). The child's relations with others. In J.M. Edie (Ed.), The primacy of perception (pp. 96-158). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
114. Merleau-Ponty, M. ([1964] 1968). The visible and the invisible. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
115. Michael, J. (2011). Interactionism and mindreading. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 559-578.
116. Michael, J., & Overgaard, S. (2012). Interaction and social cognition: A comment on Auvray et al.'s perceptual crossing paradigm. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 296-299.
117. Mirza, N.A., Nehaniv, C.L., Dautenhahn, K., & te Boekhorst, R. (2008). Developing social action capabilities in a humanoid robot using an interaction history architecture. In Humanoid robots, 2008: 8th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoids 2008 (pp. 609-616). IEEE.
118. Muir, D.W. (2002). Adult communications with infants through touch: The forgotten sense. Human Development, 45(2), 95-99.
119. Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulations of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers. In T.M. Field & N.A. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infants (pp. 177-197). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
120. Nadel, J., Carchon, I., Kervella, C., Marcelli, D., & Réserbat-Plantey, D. (1999). Expectancies for social contingency in 2-month-olds. Developmental Science, 2(2), 164-173.
121. Nichols, S. (2003). Folk psychology. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 134-140). London, UK: Nature Publishing Group.
122. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
123. Noë, A. (2009). Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
124. Onishi, K.H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs? Science, 308, 255-258.
125. Oullier, O., de Guzman, G.C., Jantzen, K.J., Lagarde, J., & Kelso, J.A.S. (2008). Social coordination dynamics: Measuring human bonding. Social Neuroscience, 3(2), 178-192.
126. Perner, J., & Ruffman, T. (2005). Infants' insight into the mind: How deep? Science, 308, 214-216.
127. Port, R.F., & van Gelder, T. (Eds.). (1995). Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
128. Povinelli, D.J., & Vonk, J. (2003). Chimpanzee minds: Suspiciously human? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 157-160.
129. Reddy, V. (2008). How infants know minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
130. Reddy, V., & Morris, P. (2004). Participants don't need theories: Knowing minds in engagement. Theory & Psychology, 14(5), 647-665.
131. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131-141.
132. Robins, B., Ferrari, E., Dautenhahn, K., Kronreif, G., Prazak-Aram, B., Gelderblom, G.-J., Caprino, F., Laudanna, E., & Marti, P. (2010). Human-centered design methods: Developing scenarios for robot assisted play informed by user panels and field trials. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 873-898.
133. Rohde, M. (2010). Enaction, embodiment, evolutionary robotics: Simulation models for a post-cognitivist science of mind. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Atlantis Press.
134. Roy, J.-M., Petitot, J., Pachoud, B., & Varela, F.J. (1999). Beyond the gap: An introduction to naturalizing phenomenology. In J. Petitot, F.J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science (pp. 1-80). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
135. Ruffman, T., & Perner, J. (2005). Do infants really understand false belief? Response to Leslie. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 462-463.
136. Sandini, G., Metta, G., & Vernon, D. (2007). The icub cognitive humanoid robot: An open-system research platform for enactive cognition. In M. Lungarella, F. Iida, J.C. Bongard, & R. Pfeifer (Eds.), 50 years of artificial intelligence: Essays dedicated to the 50th anniversary of artificial intelligence (pp. 358-369). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
137. Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (in press). Toward a Second-Person Neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, forthcoming.
138. Smith, L.B., & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 343-348.
139. Song, H.-J., Onishi, K.H., Baillargeon, R., & Fisher, C. (2008). Can an agent's false belief be corrected by an appropriate communication? Psychological reasoning in 18-month-old infants. Cognition, 109(3), 295-315.
140. Soussignan, R., Nadel, J., Canet, P., & Gerardin, P. (2006). Sensitivity to social contingecy and positive emotion in 2-month-olds. Infancy, 10(2), 123-144.
141. Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., & Csibra, G. (2010). Seventeen-month-olds appeal to false beliefs to interpret others' referential communication. Developmental Science, 13(6), 907-912.
142. Southgate, V., Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2007). Action anticipation through attribution of false belief by 2-year-olds. Psychological Science, 18(7), 587-592.
143. Spaulding, S. (2010). Embodied cognition and mindreading. Mind & Language, 25(1), 119-140.
144. Steels, L. (1994). The artificial life roots of artificial intelligence. Artificial Life, 1(1), 89-125.
145. Steiner, P., & Stewart, J. (2009). From autonomy to heteronomy (and back): The enaction of social life. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 527-550.
146. Stormark, K.M., & Braarud, H.C. (2004). Infants' sensitivity to social contingency: A "double video" study of face-To-face communication between 2-And 4-month-olds and their mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 27(2), 195-203.
147. Stout, R. (2012). What someone's behavior must be like if we are to be aware of their emotions in it. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 135-148.
148. Surian, L., Caldi, S., & Sperber, D. (2007). Attribution of beliefs by 13-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 18, 580-586.
149. Thompson, E. (2001). Empathy and consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5-7), 1-32.
150. Thompson, E., & Stapleton, M. (2009). Making sense of sense-making: Reflections on enactive and extended mind theories. Topoi, 28(1), 23-30.
151. Torrance, S., & Froese, T. (2011). An inter-enactive approach to agency: Participatory sense-making, dynamics, and sociality. Humana.Mente, 15, 21-53.
152. Träuble, B., Marinović, V., & Pauen, S. (2010). Early theory of mind competencies: Do infants understand others' beliefs? Infancy, 15(4), 434-444.
153. Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy: A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech (pp. 321-347). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
154. Trevarthen, C., & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity: Confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, gesture and symbol: The emergence of language (pp. 183-229). London, UK: Academic Press.
155. Tronick, E., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T.B. (1978). The infant's response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-To-face interaction. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17, 1-13.
156. van Gelder, T. (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(5), 615-665.
157. van Gelder, T. (1999). Wooden iron? Husserlian phenomenology meets cognitive science. In J. Petitot, F.J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science (pp. 245-265). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
158. Varela, F.J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 330-349.
159. Varela, F.J. (1999). The specious present: A neurophenomenology of time consciousness. In J. Petitot, F.J. Varela, B. Pachoud, & J.-M. Roy (Eds.), Naturalizing phenomenology: Issues in contemporary phenomenology and cognitive science (pp. 266-317). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
160. Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
161. Vernon, D., Metta, G., & Sandini, G. (2007). A survey of artificial cognitive systems: Implications for the autonomous development of mental capabilities in computational agents. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 11(2), 151-180.
162. Webb, B. (2009). Animals versus animats: Or why not model the real iguana? Adaptive Behavior, 17(4), 269-286.
163. Wheeler, M. (2010). Minds, things, and materiality. In L. Malafouris & C. Renfrew (Eds.), The cognitive life of things: Recasting boundaries of the mind. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archeological Research.
164. Zahavi, D. (2001). Beyond empathy: Phenomenological approaches to intersubjectivity. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(5-7), 151-167.
165. Zahavi, D. (2011). Empathy and direct social perception: A phenomenological proposal. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 541-558.