One could argue that a much more empirical set of data, based on concrete and directly observable overt behavior patterns, detectable with eye-tracking technology, at key times, yet in "real time" (i.e. in then-current behavior patterns), could be used, AND HYPOTHESES DIRECTLY TESTED, as explanations for concept development. Start at the following Question:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_Beginning_of_a_Human_Ethogram_seeing_the_inception_of_cognitive-developmental_stages_as_involving_a_couple_of_phases_of_non-conscious_perception
The "sensori-motor" explanations have turned out as not well-founded and based on VERY indirect evidence, at best, and seen IN PEER REVIEW, as having "no future":
Article The poverty of embodied cognition
There are several possibilities to directly test sensory-motor foundations of abstract concepts. Eye movements are only one possibility. Other possibilities are behavioral interference experiments showing for instance that motor activity incurs processing of abstract concepts. We plan to conduct experiments in this direction and keep you updated.
Best wishes,
Markus
Dear Markus Kiefer
Eye movements are used to see the evidence FOR my theory and perspective AND ARE NOT THEMSELVES, or in-themselves, or by themselves THE EVIDENCE, i.e. the evidence as fully seen and understood. With the new technology of eye-tracking, eye movements help us define the important behavior patterns (on a much more holistic scope). The "relevant" environment is a biger thing with this approach (related to Memories brought forward), not limited to what you would spontaneously or happenstantially see in eye movements -- without LOOKING FOR EXPECTED PATTERNS, related to cognitive-developmental theory).
You obviously have not encountered Ethogram Theory. See: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory and especially see: "A Human Ethogram ..." and the Collected Essays (a BOOK)(these fully explicate and show the grounding for this fully empirical approach, based (founded/grounded) in direct observation of subtle, overt behavior patterns, found USING eye-tracking technology and perhaps computer-assisted analysis).
This perspective deserves consideration from any empiricist and from any psychologist who has any intention to use the classical definition of psychology (and understand behavior in terms of behavior patterns and environmental aspects) -- inferring NOTHING ELSE that has not been well-shown in excellent Memory research AND considering the likely big (ubiquitous) role of associative learnings. That and new technology is a very good "kit". (This is a way to use only the "good stuff" as part of the perspective.)
P.S. Like published peer assessments of the "field" of "embodied-behavior"-as-thought, I consider that approach no longer plausible (and NEVER with any direct evidence, nor will it ever have any). This approach exists only because of the adherence to unproven, unjustified, and likely incorrect "assumptions" (actually, beliefs). It is from false "assumption" biases (and perhaps, desperation). They(you) are in a "box" and it is the wrong "box"
Thank you for your suggestions regarding the use of eye movements. However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the embodiment/grounded cognition perspective is unproven and unjustified. You just have a look at several review or original papers demonstrating direct evidence for the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual cognition. Hence, embodied/grounded cognition theories are clearly supported by sound empirical evidence. Just to mention a few examples:
Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48, 805-825.
Pulvermüller, F., & Fadiga, L. (2010). Active perception: Sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 351-360.
Shebani, Z., & Pulvermüller, F. (2013). Moving the hands and feet specifically impairs working memory for arm- and leg-related action words. Cortex, 49, 222-231.
Dear Markus Kiefer
I see the "embodied" ideas, if not entirely incorrect (much past the sensori-motor period), are at least an outrageously incomplete account -- to the level of NONSENSE. The bias against any significant innate guidance for/with major cognitive developments late into childhood is absurd AND BASED ON FALSE, unjustified, baseless, unproven "ASSUMPTIONS" (and/or related pseudo-'assumptions'). I have clearly outlined THIS CONDITION (many, many psychologists have) in detail, just see several of my writings here on RG, in my Collected Essays BOOK. AND, I have chosen biology-consistent, 'opposite', more-likely-true, real assumptions, and have been able to imagine what you may not even start to be able to imagine, which are directly empirically-based hypotheses for other ways of cognitive development WITH innate guidance therein -- a nature/nurture combination many psychologists indicate (actually, pretend) they speak of, but, in fact, they cannot ever (even in/for a moment) escape the real and strong and complete dualism in their nature/nurture concepts AND just momentarily, with unclear thinking, as needed, "fool themselves" and "fool" others (with nothing but DOGMA behind it).
If I were you: I would "read me", to see other BETTER-RESEARCHABLE , DEFINITE, AND REAL possibilities you are likely completely AND irrationally totally "blind" to (on no decent basis, scientifically speaking). Some of these new perspectives are much more empirically founded and grounded in DIRECT OBSERVATION OF OVERT BEHAVIOR [patterns] -- like something "embodiment theory" CAN NEVER REALLY EVEN HOPE FOR (ever). In my view, you are VERY likely a 'victim' of wrong learning, as SO MANY other psychologists I know ARE.
OVERALL (w/r to "embodiment theory"):
Regarding embodied cognition as a research approach, I agree with the TOTALLY NEGATIVE critical review of 5 peer scholars in a published review, called "The Poverty of Embodied Cognition" : Article The poverty of embodied cognition
See www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975666/ for FULL-TEXT
This is well beyond the damning of present work; it indicates NO HOPE for that approach whatsoever, ever.
Some of my works, to reasonably and validly "see more":
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
Book NOW the nearly complete collection of essays (RIGHT HERE) _B...
P.S. One of my diagnostic claims (above) is VERY easy to see demonstrated. Just ask the professors to show a single instance OF ACTUAL BEHAVIOR where both "the innate" and the "learned" are at work (think: simultaneously): ask them for an instance in later childhood. THEY WILL FAIL THIS EVERY TIME: All they [can] EVER DO is go back-and-forth and back-and-forth indicating these "2 influences" on behavior. [ And, don't let them claim, having NO EXEMPLARS, that it is because the matter is simply [(always, at all times)] too "complex". Often "complexity" is the hobgoblin of small (or stilted) minds, it seems. ]
I have definitively concluded:
Psychology is bad-enough off, one basically has to personally do an assessment and creation "from the ground up". Immediately assume nothing; "believe" NOTHING -- in both cases w/r to "what's around". And, when starting anew: THINK BIOLOGY; any scientist must realize and believe BEHAVIOR PATTERNS are BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING (it you cannot do this, you might as well go to church). ---------------------------------------> --------------------------> ------------------------> ------------> My works (above, and now: below) are one big instance of JUST THAT "ground-up" approach. (Know how and why you assume or believe ANYTHING -- think of this approach as existential ethics, if you need support or convincing and, also, see the Question that is linked to below. ) I ASSERT NOTHING; I basically simply say : "look there" and consider my fully direct and empirical, truly completely-concrete hypotheses, if you will.
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
Book NOW the nearly complete collection of essays (RIGHT HERE) _B...
Again, if you need more reason to start again anew, see also the following Question:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/We_think_of_something_perhaps_with_others_or_we_name_something_does_that_mean_that_THIS_IS_something_key-and-distinct_or_in_some_way_primary
P.P.S. To read me thoroughly is too love me. Thank you, in advance.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology