Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 292
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Boyer, Ty W. and Bertenthal, Bennett I. 2016. Infants' observation of others' actions: Brief movement-specific visual experience primes motor representations. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, Vol. 34, Issue. 1, p. 38.


    Clark, Andy 2016. Busting Out: Predictive Brains, Embodied Minds, and the Puzzle of the Evidentiary Veil. Noûs,


    Clowes, Robert W. and Mendonça, Dina 2016. Representation Redux: Is there still a useful role for representation to play in the context of embodied, dynamicist and situated theories of mind?. New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 40, p. 26.


    Devereaux, Jennifer J. 2016. Embodiment in Latin Semantics.


    Fausto-Sterling, Anne 2016. How else can we study sex differences in early infancy?. Developmental Psychobiology, Vol. 58, Issue. 1, p. 5.


    Granic, Isabela Hollenstein, Tom and Lichtwarck-Aschoff, Anna 2016. Developmental Psychopathology.


    Hendry, Alexandra Jones, Emily J.H. and Charman, Tony 2016. Executive function in the first three years of life: Precursors, predictors and patterns. Developmental Review,


    Kabadayi, Can Taylor, Lucy A. von Bayern, Auguste M. P. and Osvath, Mathias 2016. Ravens, New Caledonian crows and jackdaws parallel great apes in motor self-regulation despite smaller brains. Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 3, Issue. 4, p. 160104.


    Loeffler, Jonna Raab, Markus and Cañal-Bruland, Rouwen 2016. A Lifespan Perspective on Embodied Cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7,


    Lourenço, Orlando M. 2016. Developmental stages, Piagetian stages in particular: A critical review. New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 40, p. 123.


    Mangen, Anne and Balsvik, Lillian 2016. Pen or keyboard in beginning writing instruction? Some perspectives from embodied cognition. Trends in Neuroscience and Education,


    Reybrouck, Mark 2016. Trends in Music Information Seeking, Behavior, and Retrieval for Creativity.


    Roon, Kevin D. and Gafos, Adamantios I. 2016. Perceiving while producing: Modeling the dynamics of phonological planning. Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 89, p. 222.


    Santucci, Vieri Giuliano Cilia, Dalia Nicole and Pezzulo, Giovanni 2016. The status of the simulative method in cognitive science: current debates and future prospects. PARADIGMI, Issue. 3, p. 47.


    Thompson, Joe J. Sameen, Nehdia and Racine, Timothy P. 2016. Methodological consequences of weak embodied cognition and shared intentionality. New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 43, p. 28.


    Venturelli, A. Nicolás 2016. A Cautionary Contribution to the Philosophy of Explanation in the Cognitive Neurosciences. Minds and Machines,


    Young, Gerald 2016. Unifying Causality and Psychology.


    Abramova, Ekaterina and Slors, Marc 2015. Social cognition in simple action coordination: A case for direct perception. Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 36, p. 519.


    Bloch-Mullins, Corinne L. 2015. Foundational Questions about Concepts: Context-sensitivity and Embodiment. Philosophy Compass, Vol. 10, Issue. 12, p. 940.


    Clark, Andy 2015. Radical Predictive Processing. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 53, p. 3.


    ×

The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching

  • Esther Thelen (a1), Gregor Schöner (a2), Christian Scheier (a3) and Linda B. Smith (a4)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003910
  • Published online: 01 February 2001
Abstract

The overall goal of this target article is to demonstrate a mechanism for an embodied cognition. The particular vehicle is a much-studied, but still widely debated phenomenon seen in 7–12 month-old-infants. In Piaget's classic “A-not-B error,” infants who have successfully uncovered a toy at location “A” continue to reach to that location even after they watch the toy hidden in a nearby location “B.” Here, we question the traditional explanations of the error as an indicator of infants' concepts of objects or other static mental structures. Instead, we demonstrate that the A-not-B error and its previously puzzling contextual variations can be understood by the coupled dynamics of the ordinary processes of goal-directed actions: looking, planning, reaching, and remembering. We offer a formal dynamic theory and model based on cognitive embodiment that both simulates the known A-not-B effects and offers novel predictions that match new experimental results. The demonstration supports an embodied view by casting the mental events involved in perception, planning, deciding, and remembering in the same analogic dynamic language as that used to describe bodily movement, so that they may be continuously meshed. We maintain that this mesh is a pre-eminently cognitive act of “knowing” not only in infancy but also in everyday activities throughout the life span.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: