Principles of representation: Why you can't represent the same concept twice

Topics in Cognitive Science

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 390-406

  Connell, Louise ^a,c   Lynott, Dermot ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Concepts; Embodied cognition; Language; Linguistic bootstrapping; Linguistic shortcut; Perceptual simulation; Representation

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS;

ATTENTION; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS;

EID: 84904984414     PISSN: 17568757     EISSN: 17568765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/tops.12097     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463-498.
2. Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321-324.
3. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
4. Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 358, 1177-1187.
5. Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Abstractions as dynamic interpretation in perceptual symbol systems. In L. Gershkoff-Stowe, & D. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories (pp. 389-431). Carnegie Symposium Series. Majwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Barsalou, L.W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
7. Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 1281-1289.
8. Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In M. De Vega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.). Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245-283). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9. Borges, J. L. (1962). Funes the Memorious (J. E. Irby, Trans.). In D. A. Yates & J. E. Irby (Eds.), Labyrinths (pp. 65-71). New York: New Directions (Original work published 1942).
10. Brants, T., & Franz, A. (2006). Web 1T 5-gram Version 1. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
11. Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 177-210.
12. Carruthers, P. (2006). The architecture of the mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14. Collins, J., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Coulson, S. (2011). Modality switching in a property verification task: an ERP study of what happens when candles flicker after high heels click. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(10), 1-10.
15. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204-256.
16. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2010). Look but don't touch: tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words. Cognition, 115, 1-9.
17. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2011). Modality switching costs emerge in concept creation as well as retrieval. Cognitive Science, 35, 763-778.
18. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). When does perception facilitate or interfere with conceptual processing? The effect of attentional modulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(474), 1-3.
19. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2013). Flexible and fast: Linguistic shortcut affects both shallow and deep conceptual processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 542-550.
20. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2014). I see/hear what you mean: Semantic activation depends on perceptual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 527-533.
21. Connell, L., Lynott, D., & Dreyer, F. (2012). A functional role for modality-specific perceptual systems in conceptual representations. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e33321.
22. Dijkstra, K., Kaschak, M. P., & Zwaan, R. A. (2007). Body posture facilitates retrieval of autobiographical memories. Cognition, 102, 139-149.
23. Dilkina, K., McClelland, J. L., & Plaut, D. C. (2008). A single-system account of semantic and lexical deficits in five semantic dementia patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25, 136-164.
24. Dils, A. T., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Visual motion aftereffect from understanding motion language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16396-16400.
25. Dry, M. J., & Storms, G. (2010). Features of graded category structure: Generalizing the family resemblance and polymorphous concept models. Acta Psychologica, 133, 244-255.
26. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
27. Elman, J. L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33, 547-582.
28. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59, 255-278.
29. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
30. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11-15.
31. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 41-50.
32. Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379-401.
33. González, J., Barros-Loscertales, A., Pulvermüller, F., Meseguer, V., Sanjuán, A., Belloch, V., & Ávila, C. (2006). Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. Neuroimage, 32, 906-912.
34. Hald, L. A., Marshall, J. A., Janssen, D. P., & Garnham, A. (2011). Switching modalities in a sentence verification task: ERP evidence for embodied language processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(45), 1-15.
35. Hardt, O., Einarsson, E. O., & Nader, K. (2010). A bridge over troubled water: Reconsolidation as a link between cognitive and neuroscientific memory research traditions. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 141-167.
36. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301-307.
37. Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Neurophysiological distinction of action words in the fronto-central cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 21, 191-201.
38. Jaswal, V. K. (2007). The effect of vocabulary size on toddlers' receptiveness to unexpected testimony about category Mmembership. Infancy, 12, 169-187.
39. Johns, B. T., & Jones, M. N. (2012). Perceptual inference through global lexical similarity. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 103-120.
40. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
41. Kaschak, M. P., Madden, C. J., Therriault, D. J., Yaxley, R. H., Aveyard, M., Blanchard, A. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Perception of motion affects language processing. Cognition, 94, B79-B89.
42. Kaschak, M. P., Zwaan, R. A., Aveyard, M., & Yaxley, R. H. (2006). Perception of auditory motion affects language processing. Cognitive Science, 30, 733-744.
43. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211.
44. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572.
45. Loftus, E. F. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
46. Louwerse, M. M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Science, 35, 381-398.
47. Louwerse, M., & Hutchinson, S. (2012). Neurological evidence linguistic processes precede perceptual simulation in conceptual processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(385), 1-11.
48. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2008). Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic. In M. de Vega, A. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning. Oxford University Press.
49. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114, 96-104.
50. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 558-564.
51. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2010). Embodied conceptual combination. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(212), 1-14.
52. Machery, E. (2007). Concept empiricism: A methodological critique. Cognition, 104, 19-46.
53. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102, 59-70.
54. Markman, A. B. (2012). Knowledge representation. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 36-51). New York: Oxford University Press.
55. Marocco, D., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, K., & Belpaeme, T. (2010). Grounding action words in the sensorimotor interaction with the world: Experiments with a simulated iCub humanoid Rrobot. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 4(7), 1-15.
56. Marques, J. F. (2006). Specialization and semantic organization: Evidence for multiple semantics linked to sensory modalities. Memory & Cognition, 34, 60-67.
57. Meteyard, L., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2007). Motion detection and motion verbs language affects low-level visual perception. Psychological Science, 18, 1007-1013.
58. Minda, J. P., & Smith, J. D. (2010). Prototype models of categorization: Basic formulation, predictions, and limitations. In E. Pothos, & A. Wills (Eds.), Formal approaches in categorization (pp. 40-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Newman, S. D., Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Just, M. A. (2005). Imagining material versus geometric properties of objects: An f MRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 235-246.
60. Pecher, D., Zanolie, K., & Zeelenberg, R. (2007). Verifying visual properties in sentence verification facilitates picture recognition memory. Experimental Psychology, 54, 173-179.
61. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying properties from different modalities for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119-124.
62. Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Sensorimotor simulations underlie conceptual representations: Modality-specific effects of prior activation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 164-167.
63. Pezzulo, G., Barsalou, L. W., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, M. H., McRae, K., & Spivey, M. J. (2011). The mechanics of embodiment: a dialog on embodiment and computational modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(5), 1-21.
64. Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
65. Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576-582.
66. Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., & Ilmoniemi, R. (2005). Brain signatures of meaning access in action word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 884-892.
67. Raven, J. C. (1948). The comparative assessment of intellectual ability. British Journal of Psychology. General Section, 39, 12-19.
68. Riskind, J. H., & Gotay, C. C. (1983). Physical posture: Could it have regulatory or feedback effects on motivation and emotion? Motivation and Emotion, 6, 273-2898.
69. Santos, A., Chaigneau, S. E., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Property generation reflects word association and situated simulation. Language and Cognition, 3, 83-119.
70. Simmons, W. K., Hamann, S. B., Harenski, C. N., Hu, X. P., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. Journal of Physiology - Paris, 102, 106-119.
71. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
72. Smith, L. B. (2003). Learning to recognize objects. Psychological Science, 14, 244-250.
73. Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory & Cognition, 32, 244-259.
74. Spence, C., Nicholls, M. E. R., & Driver, J. (2001). The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 330-336.
75. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Elrbaum.
76. Turatto, M., Galfano, G., Bridgeman, B., & Umiltà, C. (2004). Space-independent modality-driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems. Experimental Brain Research, 155, 301-310.
77. van Dantzig, S., Cowell, R. A., Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D. (2011). A sharp image or a sharp knife: norms for the modality-exclusivity of 774 concept-property items. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 145-154.
78. Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 1, 219-248.
79. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636.
80. Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Barrett, L. F., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Grounding emotion in situated conceptualization. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1105-1127.