On Staying Grounded and Avoiding Quixotic Dead Ends

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 1122-1142

  Barsalou, Lawrence W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Abstraction; Concepts and categories; Context; Grounded cognition

Indexed keywords

BRAIN; COGNITION; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY;

BRAIN; COGNITION; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY;

EID: 84964546388     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1028-3     Document Type: Review

References (153)

1. Adams, S. V., Wennekers, T., Cangelosi, A., Garagnani, M., & Pulvermuller, F. (2014). Learning visual-motor cell assemblies for the iCub robot using a neuroanatomically grounded neural network. In 2014 I.E. Symposium on Computational Intelligence, Cognitive Algorithms, Mind, and Brain (CCMB) (pp. 1–8).
2. Akpinar, E., & Berger, J. (2015). Drivers of cultural success: The case of sensory metaphors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 20–34.
3. Allen, S. W., & Brooks, L. R. (1991). Specializing the operation of an explicit rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 3–19.
4. Amunts, K., & Zilles, K. (2015). Architectonic mapping of the human brain beyond Brodmann. Neuron, 88, 1086–1107.
5. Anderson, M. L. (2010). Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 245–266.
6. Andrews, M., Frank, S., & Vigliocco, G. (2014). Reconciling embodied and distributional accounts of meaning in language. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 359–370.
7. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463–498.
8. Baroni, M., & Lenci, A. (2010). Distributional memory: A general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computational Linguistics, 36, 673–721.
9. Barsalou, L. W. (in press-a). Can cognition be reduced to action? Processes that mediate stimuli and responses make human action possible. In A. K. Engel, K. J. Friston, & D. kragic, Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science (Strüngmann Forum Reports, Vol. 18. J. Lupp, Series Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Barsalou, L. W. (in press-b). Cognitively plausible theories of concept composition. In Y. Winter & J. A. Hampton, Compositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology. London: Springer Publishing.
11. Barsalou, L. W. (in press-c). Situated conceptualization: Theory and applications. In Y. Coello & M. H. Fischer, Foundations of embodied cognition. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
12. Barsalou, L. W. (1990). On the indistinguishability of exemplar memory and abstraction in category representation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. W. Jr, Content and process specificity in the effects of prior experiences: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 61–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
14. Barsalou, L. W. (2003a). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 358, 1177–1187.
15. Barsalou, L. W. (2003b). Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 513–562.
16. Barsalou, L. W. (2008a). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
17. Barsalou, L. W. (2008b). Grounding symbolic operations in the brain’s modal systems. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 9–42). New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1281–1289.
19. Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.
20. Barsalou, L. W. (2012). The human conceptual system. In M. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. F. Joanisse (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 239–258). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Barsalou, L. W., Breazeal, C., & Smith, L. B. (2007). Cognition as coordinated non-cognition. Cognitive Processing, 8, 79–91.
22. Barsalou, L. W., & Hale, C. (1993). Components of conceptual representation. From feature lists to recursive frames. In I. Van Mechelen, J. A. Hampton, R. Michalski, & P. Theuns (Eds.), Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis (Hale, C, pp. 97–144). San Diego: Academic Press.
23. 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: Oxford University Press.
24. Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 84–91.
25. Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan, (pp. 129–163). New York: Cambridge University Press.
26. Binder, J. R. (2016). In defense of abstract conceptual representations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0909-1.
27. Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where Is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2767–2796.
28. Binder, J. R., Westbury, C. F., McKiernan, K. A., Possing, E. T., & Medler, D. A. (2005). Distinct brain systems for processing concrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 905–917.
29. Blouw, P., Solodkin, E., Thagard, P., & Eliasmith, C. (2015). Concepts as semantic pointers: A framework and computational model. Cognitive Science, 1–35.
30. Braga, R. M., Wilson, L. R., Sharp, D. J., Wise, R. J. S., & Leech, R. (2013). Separable networks for top-down attention to auditory non-spatial and visuospatial modalities. NeuroImage, 74, 77–86.
31. Buckner, R. L., & Krienen, F. M. (2013). The evolution of distributed association networks in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 648–665.
32. Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., Parisi, D., & Baldassarre, G. (2010). TRoPICALS: A computational embodied neuroscience model of compatibility effects. Psychological Review, 117, 1188–1228.
33. Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 1–34.
34. Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G. (2015). All concepts are ad hoc concepts. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 543–566). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. Chemero, A., & Turvey, M. T. (2011). Philosophy for the rest of Cognitive Science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 425–437.
36. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26–58.
37. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2013). Flexible and fast: Linguistic shortcut affects both shallow and deep conceptual processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 542–550.
38. Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2014). Principles of representation: Why you can’t represent the same concept twice. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 390–406.
39. Damasio, A. R. (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systems-level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33, 25–62.
40. Devereux, B. J., Clarke, A., Marouchos, A., & Tyler, L. K. (2013). Representational similarity analysis reveals commonalities and differences in the semantic processing of words and objects. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 18906–18916.
41. Donald, M. (1993). Precis of Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 737–748.
42. Dove, G. (2009). Beyond perceptual symbols: A call for representational pluralism. Cognition, 110, 412–431.
43. Dove, G. (2016). Three symbol ungrounding problems: Abstract concepts and the future of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0825-4.
44. Drane, D. L., Ojemann, G. A., Aylward, E., Ojemann, J. G., Johnson, L. C., Silbergeld, D. L., & Tranel, D. (2008). Category-specific naming and recognition deficits in temporal lobe epilepsy surgical patients. Neuropsychologia, 46, 1242–1255.
45. Drane, D. L., Ojemann, G. A., Ojemann, J. G., Aylward, E., Silbergeld, D. L., Miller, J. W., & Tranel, D. (2009). Category-specific recognition and naming deficits following resection of a right anterior temporal lobe tumor in a patient with atypical language lateralization. Cortex, 45, 630–640.
46. Drane, D. L., Ojemann, J. G., Phatak, V., Loring, D. W., Gross, R. E., Hebb, A. O., Silbergeld, D.L., Miller, J.W., Voets, N.L., Saindane, A.M., Barsalou, L.W., Meador, K.J., Ojemann, G.A., & Tranel, D. (2013). Famous face identification in temporal lobe epilepsy: Support for a multimodal integration model of semantic memory. Cortex, 49, 1648–1667.
47. Eliasmith, C. (2013). How to build a brain: A neural architecture for biological cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Engel, A. K., Maye, A., Kurthen, M., & König, P. (2013). Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 202–209.
49. Erk, K. (2012). Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A Survey. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 635–653.
50. Erk, K., & Padó, S. (2008). A structured vector space model for word meaning in context. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 897–906). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from.
51. Fairhall, S. L., & Caramazza, A. (2013). Brain regions that represent amodal conceptual knowledge. Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 10552–10558.
52. Farah, M. J., Wong, A. B., Monheit, M. A., & Morrow, L. A. (1989). Parietal lobe mechanisms of spatial attention: Modality-specific or supramodal? Neuropsychologia, 27, 461–470.
53. Fernandino, L., Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Pendl, S. L., Humphries, C. J., Gross, W. L., Seidenberg, M. S. (in press). Concept representation reflects multimodal abstraction: A framework for embodied semantics. Cerebral Cortex.
54. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Harvard University Press.
55. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3–71.
56. Ganguli, S., & Sompolinsky, H. (2012). Compressed sensing, sparsity, and dimensionality in neuronal information processing and data analysis. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35, 485–508.
57. Gawronski, B., & Cesario, J. (2013). Of mice and men What animal research can tell us about context effects on automatic responses in humans. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 187–215.
58. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
59. Glaser, W. R. (1992). Picture naming. Cognition, 42, 61–105.
60. Goldinger, S. D., Papesh, M. H., Barnhart, A. S., Hansen, W. A., & Hout, M. C. (2016). The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0860-1.
61. Gotts, S. J. (2016). Incremental learning of perceptual and conceptual representations and the puzzle of neural repetition suppression. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0855-y.
62. Grill-Spector, K., & Weiner, K. S. (2014). The functional architecture of the ventral temporal cortex and its role in categorization. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 536–548.
63. Hampton, J. A. (2006). Concepts as prototypes. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol 46) (pp. 79–113). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
64. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 335–346.
65. Hauk, O. (2016). Only time will tell – why temporal information is essential for our neuroscientific understanding of semantics. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0873-9.
66. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
67. Hinton, G. E. (2006). Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313, 504–507.
68. Hsu, N. S., Frankland, S. M., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2012). Chromaticity of color perception and object color knowledge. Neuropsychologia, 50, 327–333.
69. Huettig, F., Rommers, J., & Meyer, A. S. (2011). Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: A review and critical evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 137, 151–171.
70. Humphries, C., Binder, J., Medler, D., & Liebenthal, E. (2006). Syntactic and semantic modulation of neural activity during auditory sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 665–679.
71. Jamrozik, A., McQuire, M., Cardillo, E.R., & Chatterjee, A. (2016). Metaphor: Bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0861-0.
72. Kemmerer, D. (2006). The semantics of space: Integrating linguistic typology and cognitive neuroscience. Neuropsychologia, 44, 1607–1621.
73. Kemmerer, D. (2015a). Are the motor features of verb meanings represented in the precentral motor cortices? Yes, but within the context of a flexible, multilevel architecture for conceptual knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1068–1075.
74. Kemmerer, D. (2015b). Are we ever aware of concepts? A critical question for the Global Neuronal Workspace, Integrated Information, and Attended Intermediate-Level Representation theories of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2015(1), niv006.
75. Kemmerer, D., Castillo, J. G., Talavage, T., Patterson, S., & Wiley, C. (2008). Neuroanatomical distribution of five semantic components of verbs: Evidence from fMRI. Brain and Language, 107, 16–43.
76. Kiefer, M., Adams, S. C., & Zovko, M. (2012). Attentional sensitization of unconscious visual processing: Top-down influences on masked priming. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8, 50–61.
77. Kiefer, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2013). Grounding the human conceptual system in perception, action, and internal states. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 381–407). Cambridge: MIT Press.
78. Lachman, R., Lachman, J. L., & Butterfield, E. C. (1979). Cognitive psychology and information processing: An introduction. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
79. Lambon Ralph, M. A., Sage, K., Jones, R. W., & Mayberry, E. J. (2010). Coherent concepts are computed in the anterior temporal lobes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 2717–2722.
80. 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, 211–240.
81. Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (2013). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
82. Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1–40.
83. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
84. Lebois, L. A. M., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., & Barsalou, L. W. (2015). Are automatic conceptual cores the gold standard of semantic processing? The context-dependence of spatial meaning in grounded congruency effects. Cognitive Science, 39, 1764–1801.
85. Legrand, D., & Ruby, P. (2009). What is self-specific? Theoretical investigation and critical review of neuroimaging results. Psychological Review, 116, 252–282.
86. Leshinskaya, A., & Caramazza, A. (2016). For a cognitive neuroscience of concepts: Moving beyond the grounding issue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0870-z.
87. Louwerse, M. M. (2011). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 273–302.
88. 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.
89. Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114, 96–104.
90. Love, B. C., Medin, D. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2004). SUSTAIN: A network model of category learning. Psychological Review, 111, 309–332.
91. Machery, E. (2007). Concept empiricism: A methodological critique. Cognition, 104, 19–46.
92. Machery, E. (2016). The amodal brain and the offloading hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0878-4.
93. Mahon, B. Z. (2015). What is embodied about cognition? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 420–429.
94. 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.
95. Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (1999). Concepts: Core readings. MIT Press.
96. Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.
97. Martin, A. (2009). Circuits in mind: The neural foundations for object concepts. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (4th ed., pp. 1031–1045). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
98. Martin, A. (2016). GRAPES—Grounding representations in action, perception, and emotion systems: How object properties and categories are represented in the human brain. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0842-3.
99. Martin, A., & Chao, L. L. (2001). Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 194–201.
100. Martin, A., Simmons, W. K., Beauchamp, M. S., & Gotts, S. J. (2014). Is a single ‘hub’, with lots of spokes, an accurate description of the neural architecture of action semantics? Physics of Life Reviews, 11, 261–262. 2.
101. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1985). Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 159–188.
102. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559.
103. McRae, K., & Jones, M. N. (2013). Semantic memory. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 206–219). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
104. Meyer, K., & Damasio, A. (2009). Convergence and divergence in a neural architecture for recognition and memory. Trends in Neurosciences, 32, 376–382.
105. Mitchell, T. M., Shinkareva, S. V., Carlson, A., Chang, K.-M., Malave, V. L., Mason, R. A., & Just, M. A. (2008). Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns. Science, 320, 1191–1195.
106. Moors, A., & De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 297–326.
107. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
108. Murphy, G. L. (2016). Is there an exemplar theory of concepts? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0834-3.
109. Niedenthal, P. M., Mermillod, M., Maringer, M., & Hess, U. (2010). The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) Model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 417–433.
110. O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 939–973.
111. Padó, S., & Lapata, M. (2007). Dependency-based construction of semantic space models. Computational Linguistics, 33, 161–199.
112. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
113. Papies, E. K. (2013). Tempting food words activate eating simulations. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12.
114. Papies, E. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2015). Grounding desire and motivated behavior: A theoretical framework and review of empirical evidence. In W. Hofmann & L. F. Nordgren (Eds.), The psychology of desire (pp. 36-60). New York: Guilford Press.
115. Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 976–987.
116. Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Meaning and the brain: The neurosomatics of referential, interactive, and combinatorial knowledge. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25, 423–459.
117. Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17, 458–470.
118. Pulvermüller, F., & Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 351–360.
119. Pulvermüller, F., & Garagnani, M. (2014). From sensorimotor learning to memory cells in prefrontal and temporal association cortex: A neurocomputational study of disembodiment. Cortex, 57, 1–21.
120. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984). Computation and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
121. Reilly, J., Peelle, J. A., Garcia, A., & Crutch, S. J. (2016). Linking somatic and symbolic representation in semantic memory: the dynamic multilevel reactivation framework. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0824-5.
122. Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge: MIT Press.
123. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
124. Ross, B. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1999). Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 495–553.
125. Rudebeck, P. H., & Murray, E. A. (2014). The orbitofrontal oracle: Cortical mechanisms for the prediction and evaluation of specific behavioral outcomes. Neuron, 84, 1143–1156.
126. Rumiati, R. I., & Foroni, F. (2016). We are what we eat: How food is represented in our mind/brain. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0908-2.
127. Santiago, J., Román, A., & Ouellet, M. (2011). Flexible foundations of abstract thought: A review and a theory. In A. Maass & T. W. Schubert (Eds.), Spatial dimensions of social thought (pp. 41–110). Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.
128. Schrodt, F., Layher, G., Neumann, H., & Butz, M. V. (2015). Embodied learning of a generative neural model for biological motion perception and inference. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 9, 79.
129. Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1991). Why are abstract concepts so hard to understand? In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 223–250). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
130. Schwiedrzik, C. M., Bernstein, B., & Melloni, L. (2016). Motion along the mental number line reveals shared representations for numerosity and space. eLife, 5.
131. Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–424.
132. Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). The similarity-in-topography principle: Reconciling theories of conceptual deficits. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 451–486.
133. Simmons, W. K., Ramjee, V., Beauchamp, M. S., McRae, K., Martin, A., & Barsalou, L. W. (2007). A common neural substrate for perceiving and knowing about color. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2802–2810.
134. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
135. Sporns, O. (Ed.). (2010). Analysis and function of large-scale brain networks. Washington, DC: Society for Neuroscience.
136. Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3, 57–149.
137. Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634.
138. Thagard, P., & Stewart, T. C. (2011). The AHA! experience: Creativity through emergent binding in neural networks. Cognitive Science, 35, 1–33.
139. Tomasino, B., & Rumiati, R. I. (2013). At the mercy of strategies: The role of motor representations in language understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 4.
140. van Dam, W. O., Brazil, I. A., Bekkering, H., & Rueschemeyer, S.-A. (2014). Flexibility in embodied language processing: Context effects in lexical access. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 407–424.
141. Van Doren, L., Dupont, P., De Grauwe, S., Peeters, R., & Vandenberghe, R. (2010). The amodal system for conscious word and picture identification in the absence of a semantic task. NeuroImage, 49, 3295–3307.
142. Van Opstal, F., & Verguts, T. (2013). Is there a generalized magnitude system in the brain? Behavioral, neuroimaging, and computational evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 4.
143. Waldhauser, G. T., Braun, V., & Hanslmayr, S. (2016). Episodic memory retrieval functionally relies on very rapid reactivation of sensory information. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 251–260.
144. Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 483–488.
145. Wang, X., Han, Z., He, Y., Caramazza, A., Song, L., & Bi, Y. (2013). Where color rests: Spontaneous brain activity of bilateral fusiform and lingual regions predicts object color knowledge performance. NeuroImage, 76, 252–263.
146. Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., Simmons, W. K., Martin, A., & Barsalou, L. W. (2013). Contextual processing of abstract concepts reveals neural representations of nonlinguistic semantic content. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 920–935.
147. Wilson, R. C., Takahashi, Y. K., Schoenbaum, G., & Niv, Y. (2014). Orbitofrontal cortex as a cognitive map of task space. Neuron, 81, 267–279.
148. Wong, C., & Gallate, J. (2012). The function of the anterior temporal lobe: A review of the empirical evidence. Brain Research, 1449, 94–116.
149. Yates, M. J., Loetscher, T., & Nicholls, M. E. R. (2012). A generalized magnitude system for space, time, and quantity? A cautionary note. Journal of Vision, 12, 9–9.
150. Yee, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2016). Putting concepts into context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0948-7.
151. Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 44, pp. pp. 35–pp. 62). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
152. Zwaan, R. A. (2016). Situation models, mental simulations, and abstract concepts in discourse comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0864-x.
153. Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2005). Embodied sentence comprehension. In D. Pecher & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 224–245). New York: Cambridge University Press.