Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Given that original purpose of cognitive architectures was to lead to a unified theory of cognition, this chapter considers the possible contributions that cognitive architectures can make to embodied theories of cognition in particular. This is not a trivial question since the field remains very much divided about what embodied cognition actually means, and we will see some example positions in this chapter. It is then argued that a useful embodied cognitive architecture would be one that can demonstrate (a) what precisely the role of the body in cognition actually is, and (b) whether a body is constitutively needed at all for some (or all) cognitive processes. It is proposed that such questions can be investigated if the cognitive architecture is designed so that consequences of varying the precise embodiment on higher cognitive mechanisms can be explored. This is in contrast with, for example, those cognitive architectures in robotics that are designed for specific bodies first; or architectures in cognitive science that implement embodiment as an add-on to an existing framework (because then, that framework is by definition not constitutively shaped by the embodiment). The chapter concludes that the so-called semantic pointer architecture by Eliasmith and colleagues may be one framework that satisfies our desiderata and may be well-suited for studying theories of embodied cognition further.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.
Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. Symbols, embodiment, and meaning (pp. 245–283). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Cangelosi, A., & Schlesinger, M. (2015). Developmental robotics: From babies to robots. MIT Press.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chersi, F., Thill, S., Ziemke, T., & Borghi, A. M. (2010). Sentence processing: Linking language to motor chains. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 4(4).
Cisek, P., & Kalaska, J. F. (2010). Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33(1), 269–298. PMID: 20345247. CrossRef
Dove, G. (2011). On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(242).
Eliasmith, C. (2013). How to build a brain: A neural architecture for biological cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Eliasmith, C., & Anderson, C. H. (2002). Neural engineering: Computation, representation, and dynamics in neurobiological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eliasmith, C., Stewart, T. C., Choo, X., Bekolay, T., DeWolf, T., Tang, Y., et al. (2012). A large-scale model of the functioning brain. Science, 338(6111), 1202–1205. CrossRef
Erlhagen, W., & Schöner, G. (2002). Dynamic field theory of movement preparation. Psychological Review, 109(3), 545–572. CrossRef
Felleman, D. J., & Van Essen, D. C. (1991). Distributed hierarchical processing in primate visual cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 1, 1–47. CrossRef
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1–3), 335–346. CrossRef
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(1), 59–70. Links and Interactions Between Language and Motor Systems in the Brain.
Pfeifer, R., Bongard, J., & Grand, S. (2007). How the body shapes the way we think: A new view of intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Pfeifer, R., & Iida, F. (2005). Morphological computation: Connecting body, brain and environment. Japanese Scientific Monthly.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(9), 417–424. CrossRef
Spencer, J. P., Austin, A., & Schutte, A. R. (2012). Contributions of dynamic systems theory to cognitive development. Cognitive Development, 27(4), 401–418. The Potential Contribution of Computational Modeling to the Study of Cognitive Development: When, and for What Topics?
Stapleton, M. (2011). Proper embodiment: The role of the body in affect and cognition. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Edinburgh.
Stapleton, M. (2013). Steps to a “properly embodied” cognitive science. Cognitive Systems Research, 22–23, 1–11. CrossRef
Stewart, T. C., Tang, Y., & Eliasmith, C. (2010). A biologically realistic cleanup memory: Autoassociation in spiking neurons. Cognitive Systems Research, 12(2), 84–92. CrossRef
Stramandinoli, F., Cangelosi, A., & Marocco, D. (2011). Towards the grounding of abstract words: A neural network model for cognitive robots. In The 2011 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (pp. 467–474).
Thill, S., Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., Ziemke, T., & Baldassarre, G. (2013). Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(3), 491–521. CrossRef
Thill, S., Padó, S., & Ziemke, T. (2014). On the importance of a rich embodiment in the grounding of concepts: Perspectives from embodied cognitive science and computational linguistics. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 545–558. CrossRef
Thill, S., Svensson, H., & Ziemke, T. (2011). Modeling the development of goal-specificity in mirror neurons. Cognitive Computation, 3(4), 525–538. CrossRef
Thill, S., & Twomey, K. (2016). What’s on the inside counts: A grounded account of concept acquisition and development. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognition, 7(402).
van der Velde, F., & de Kamps, M. (2006). Neural blackboard architectures of combinatorial structures in cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(2), 37–70.
Vernon, D. (2014). Artificial cognitive systems: A primer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vernon, D., von Hofsten, C., & Fadiga, L. (2016). Desiderata for developmental cognitive architectures. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 18, 116–127. CrossRef
Ziemke, T. (2003). What’s that thing called embodiment? In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1305–1310).
- What We Need from an Embodied Cognitive Architecture
in-adhesives, MKVS, Neuer Inhalt/© Zühlke, Technisches Interface Design/© scyther5 | Getty Images | iStock