HapticV1, PubMed, Corpus, bibRecord, 001157

Embodied conceptual combination.

Identifieur interne : 001157 ( PubMed/Corpus ); précédent : 001156; suivant : 001158

Embodied conceptual combination.

Auteurs : Dermot Lynott ; Louise Connell

Source :

Frontiers in psychology [ 1664-1078 ] ; 2010.

RBID : pubmed:21833267

Abstract

Conceptual combination research investigates the processes involved in creating new meaning from old referents. It is therefore essential that embodied theories of cognition are able to explain this constructive ability and predict the resultant behavior. However, by failing to take an embodied or grounded view of the conceptual system, existing theories of conceptual combination cannot account for the role of perceptual, motor, and affective information in conceptual combination. In the present paper, we propose the embodied conceptual combination (ECCo) model to address this oversight. In ECCo, conceptual combination is the result of the interaction of the linguistic and simulation systems, such that linguistic distributional information guides or facilitates the combination process, but the new concept is fundamentally a situated, simulated entity. So, for example, a cactus beetle is represented as a multimodal simulation that includes visual (e.g., the shiny appearance of a beetle) and haptic (e.g., the prickliness of the cactus) information, all situated in the broader location of a desert environment under a hot sun, and with (at least for some people) an element of creepy-crawly revulsion. The ECCo theory differentiates interpretations according to whether the constituent concepts are destructively, or non-destructively, combined in the situated simulation. We compare ECCo to other theories of conceptual combination, and discuss how it accounts for classic effects in the literature.

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00212
PubMed: 21833267

Links to Exploration step

pubmed:21833267

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Embodied conceptual combination.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Lynott, Dermot" sort="Lynott, Dermot" uniqKey="Lynott D" first="Dermot" last="Lynott">Dermot Lynott</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Manchester Business School, University of Manchester Manchester, UK.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Connell, Louise" sort="Connell, Louise" uniqKey="Connell L" first="Louise" last="Connell">Louise Connell</name>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno>
<date when="2010">2010</date>
<idno type="doi">10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00212</idno>
<idno type="RBID">pubmed:21833267</idno>
<idno type="pmid">21833267</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">001157</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Embodied conceptual combination.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Lynott, Dermot" sort="Lynott, Dermot" uniqKey="Lynott D" first="Dermot" last="Lynott">Dermot Lynott</name>
<affiliation><nlm:affiliation>Manchester Business School, University of Manchester Manchester, UK.</nlm:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Connell, Louise" sort="Connell, Louise" uniqKey="Connell L" first="Louise" last="Connell">Louise Connell</name>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j">Frontiers in psychology</title>
<idno type="eISSN">1664-1078</idno>
<imprint><date when="2010" type="published">2010</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass></textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Conceptual combination research investigates the processes involved in creating new meaning from old referents. It is therefore essential that embodied theories of cognition are able to explain this constructive ability and predict the resultant behavior. However, by failing to take an embodied or grounded view of the conceptual system, existing theories of conceptual combination cannot account for the role of perceptual, motor, and affective information in conceptual combination. In the present paper, we propose the embodied conceptual combination (ECCo) model to address this oversight. In ECCo, conceptual combination is the result of the interaction of the linguistic and simulation systems, such that linguistic distributional information guides or facilitates the combination process, but the new concept is fundamentally a situated, simulated entity. So, for example, a cactus beetle is represented as a multimodal simulation that includes visual (e.g., the shiny appearance of a beetle) and haptic (e.g., the prickliness of the cactus) information, all situated in the broader location of a desert environment under a hot sun, and with (at least for some people) an element of creepy-crawly revulsion. The ECCo theory differentiates interpretations according to whether the constituent concepts are destructively, or non-destructively, combined in the situated simulation. We compare ECCo to other theories of conceptual combination, and discuss how it accounts for classic effects in the literature.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pubmed><MedlineCitation Owner="NLM" Status="PubMed-not-MEDLINE"><PMID Version="1">21833267</PMID>
<DateCreated><Year>2011</Year>
<Month>08</Month>
<Day>11</Day>
</DateCreated>
<DateCompleted><Year>2011</Year>
<Month>11</Month>
<Day>10</Day>
</DateCompleted>
<DateRevised><Year>2015</Year>
<Month>02</Month>
<Day>09</Day>
</DateRevised>
<Article PubModel="Electronic-eCollection"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Electronic">1664-1078</ISSN>
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>1</Volume>
<PubDate><Year>2010</Year>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
<Title>Frontiers in psychology</Title>
<ISOAbbreviation>Front Psychol</ISOAbbreviation>
</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Embodied conceptual combination.</ArticleTitle>
<Pagination><MedlinePgn>212</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
<ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00212</ELocationID>
<Abstract><AbstractText>Conceptual combination research investigates the processes involved in creating new meaning from old referents. It is therefore essential that embodied theories of cognition are able to explain this constructive ability and predict the resultant behavior. However, by failing to take an embodied or grounded view of the conceptual system, existing theories of conceptual combination cannot account for the role of perceptual, motor, and affective information in conceptual combination. In the present paper, we propose the embodied conceptual combination (ECCo) model to address this oversight. In ECCo, conceptual combination is the result of the interaction of the linguistic and simulation systems, such that linguistic distributional information guides or facilitates the combination process, but the new concept is fundamentally a situated, simulated entity. So, for example, a cactus beetle is represented as a multimodal simulation that includes visual (e.g., the shiny appearance of a beetle) and haptic (e.g., the prickliness of the cactus) information, all situated in the broader location of a desert environment under a hot sun, and with (at least for some people) an element of creepy-crawly revulsion. The ECCo theory differentiates interpretations according to whether the constituent concepts are destructively, or non-destructively, combined in the situated simulation. We compare ECCo to other theories of conceptual combination, and discuss how it accounts for classic effects in the literature.</AbstractText>
</Abstract>
<AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Lynott</LastName>
<ForeName>Dermot</ForeName>
<Initials>D</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Manchester Business School, University of Manchester Manchester, UK.</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Connell</LastName>
<ForeName>Louise</ForeName>
<Initials>L</Initials>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<Language>eng</Language>
<PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType>
</PublicationTypeList>
<ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2010</Year>
<Month>11</Month>
<Day>25</Day>
</ArticleDate>
</Article>
<MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Switzerland</Country>
<MedlineTA>Front Psychol</MedlineTA>
<NlmUniqueID>101550902</NlmUniqueID>
<ISSNLinking>1664-1078</ISSNLinking>
</MedlineJournalInfo>
<CommentsCorrectionsList><CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cogn Psychol. 1988 Apr;20(2):158-90</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">3365938</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Mar;36(2):288-97</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">20192532</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Percept Psychophys. 2001 Feb;63(2):330-6</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">11281107</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Aug;22(4):577-609; discussion 610-60</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">11301525</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychol Sci. 2002 Mar;13(2):168-71</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">11934002</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Sep;9(3):558-65</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">12412897</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):625-36</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">12613670</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychol Sci. 2003 Mar;14(2):119-24</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">12661672</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005 Jan;31(1):169-74</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">15641914</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cognition. 2007 Jan;102(1):139-49</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">16472550</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cognition. 2007 Mar;102(3):476-85</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">16616075</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Neurosci. 2006 May 3;26(18):4917-21</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">16672666</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Aug;10(8):370-4</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">16843701</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Brain Res. 2007 Jan 26;1130(1):119-24</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">17174278</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychol Sci. 2007 May;18(5):397-400</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">17576278</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:617-45</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">17705682</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cognition. 2010 Jan;114(1):96-104</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">19818435</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cognition. 2010 Apr;115(1):1-9</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">19903564</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychol Sci. 2010 Jul;21(7):895-900</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">20548056</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cogn Neuropsychol. 2005 May;22(3):455-79</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">21038261</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychon Bull Rev. 1997 Jun;4(2):167-83</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">21331824</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cogn Sci. 2010 Aug;34(6):1107-23</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">21564245</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cogn Sci. 2008 Apr 5;32(3):579-90</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">21635347</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cogn Sci. 2005 Sep 10;29(5):719-36</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">21702791</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cogn Sci. 2006 Jan 2;30(1):95-120</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">21702810</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Acta Paedopsychiatr. 1979 Jul;44(5):247-54</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">393066</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Behav Brain Sci. 1997 Mar;20(1):1-19; discussion 19-55</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">10096994</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cogn Psychol. 1999 Nov-Dec;39(3-4):208-38</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">10631012</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Child Lang. 1997 Oct;24(3):567-601</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">9519586</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Mem Cognit. 1987 Jan;15(1):55-71</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">3821491</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Brain Lang. 2003 Jan;84(1):38-49</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">12537950</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Exp Brain Res. 2004 Apr;155(3):301-10</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">14658019</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Mem Cognit. 2004 Mar;32(2):185-97</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">15190712</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Mem Cognit. 2004 Mar;32(2):244-59</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">15190717</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Cognition. 1992 Mar;42(1-3):61-105</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">1582161</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Mem Cognit. 2005 Jul;33(5):852-61</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">16383173</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Neuroimage. 2006 Aug 15;32(2):906-12</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">16651007</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Mem Cognit. 2006 Sep;34(6):1285-97</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">17225509</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Jun;14(3):436-41</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">17874584</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychol Sci. 2008 Feb;19(2):93-7</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">18271853</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Behav Res Methods. 2009 May;41(2):558-64</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">19363198</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Jun;16(3):573-7</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">19451387</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>J Child Lang. 2010 Mar;37(2):373-94</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">19490749</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="Cites"><RefSource>Mem Cognit. 2000 Jan;28(1):28-34</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">10714135</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
</CommentsCorrectionsList>
<OtherID Source="NLM">PMC3153817</OtherID>
<KeywordList Owner="NOTNLM"><Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">conceptual combination</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">embodied cognition</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">linguistic distributional knowledge</Keyword>
<Keyword MajorTopicYN="N">situated simulation</Keyword>
</KeywordList>
</MedlineCitation>
<PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2010</Year>
<Month>7</Month>
<Day>15</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2010</Year>
<Month>11</Month>
<Day>09</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="epublish"><Year>2010</Year>
<Month>11</Month>
<Day>25</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2011</Year>
<Month>8</Month>
<Day>12</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2010</Year>
<Month>1</Month>
<Day>1</Day>
<Hour>0</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2010</Year>
<Month>1</Month>
<Day>1</Day>
<Hour>0</Hour>
<Minute>1</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
</History>
<PublicationStatus>epublish</PublicationStatus>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00212</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">21833267</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="pmc">PMC3153817</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</PubmedData>
</pubmed>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/HapticV1/Data/PubMed/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001157 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001157 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Ticri/CIDE
   |area=    HapticV1
   |flux=    PubMed
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     pubmed:21833267
   |texte=   Embodied conceptual combination.
}}

Pour générer des pages wiki

HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/RBID.i   -Sk "pubmed:21833267" \
       | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/PubMed/Corpus/biblio.hfd   \
       | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a HapticV1

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.23.
Data generation: Mon Jun 13 01:09:46 2016. Site generation: Wed Mar 6 09:54:07 2024

	Serveur d'exploration sur les dispositifs haptiques
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

Serveur d'exploration sur les dispositifs haptiques

Embodied conceptual combination.

Embodied conceptual combination.

Source :

Abstract

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

Pour générer des pages wiki