Principles of Representation: Why You Can't Represent the Same Concept Twice

As embodied theories of cognition are increasingly formalized and tested, care must be taken to make informed assumptions regarding the nature of concepts and representations. In this study, we outline three reasons why one cannot, in effect, represent the same concept twice. First, online perception affects offline representation: Current representational content depends on how ongoing demands direct attention to modality-specific systems. Second, language is a fundamental facilitator of offline representation: Bootstrapping and shortcuts within the computationally cheaper linguistic system continuously modify representational content. Third, time itself is a source of representational change: As the content of underlying concepts shifts with the accumulation of direct and vicarious experience, so too does the content of representations that draw upon these concepts. We discuss the ramifications of these principles for research into both human and synthetic cognitive systems.

[1]  E. Newport,et al.  Computation of Conditional Probability Statistics by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1998 .

[2]  A. Glenberg,et al.  Symbol Grounding and Meaning: A Comparison of High-Dimensional and Embodied Theories of Meaning , 2000 .

[3]  Linda B. Smith.  Learning to Recognize Objects Author ( s ) : , 2008 .

[4]  L. Barsalou.  Grounded cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[5]  M. Dry,et al.  Features of graded category structure: Generalizing the family resemblance and polymorphous concept models. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[6]  Dominique Martinez,et al.  Effectiveness and Robustness of Robot Infotaxis for Searching in Dilute Conditions , 2010, Front. Neurorobot..

[7]  Seana Coulson,et al.  Modality Switching in a Property Verification Task: An ERP Study of What Happens When Candles Flicker after High Heels Click , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[8]  I. Johnsrude,et al.  Somatotopic Representation of Action Words in Human Motor and Premotor Cortex , 2004, Neuron.

[9]  Gabriella Vigliocco,et al.  Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. , 2009, Psychological review.

[10]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Body posture facilitates retrieval of autobiographical memories , 2007, Cognition.

[11]  Dermot Lynott,et al.  Modality Switching Costs Emerge in Concept Creation as Well as Retrieval , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  Angelo Cangelosi,et al.  Grounding Action Words in the Sensorimotor Interaction with the World: Experiments with a Simulated iCub Humanoid Robot , 2010, Front. Neurorobot..

[13]  Xiaoping P. Hu,et al.  fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing , 2008, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[14]  Louise Connell,et al.  I see/hear what you mean: semantic activation in visual word recognition depends on perceptual attention. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  M Coltheart,et al.  DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. , 2001, Psychological review.

[16]  Louise Connell,et al.  A Functional Role for Modality-Specific Perceptual Systems in Conceptual Representations , 2012, PloS one.

[17]  Stavroula Kousta,et al.  Toward a theory of semantic representation , 2009, Language and Cognition.

[18]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Perceptual simulation in property verification , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[19]  Edouard Machery,et al.  Concept empiricism: A methodological critique , 2007, Cognition.

[20]  Peter Carruthers,et al.  The Architecture of the Mind: Massive Modularity and the Flexibility of Thought , 2006 .

[21]  C. Spence,et al.  The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  Property generation reflects word association and situated simulation , 2011, Language and Cognition.

[23]  Louise Connell,et al.  When does perception facilitate or interfere with conceptual processing? The effect of attentional modulation , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[24]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Formal Approaches in Categorization: Prototype models of categorization: basic formulation, predictions, and limitations , 2011 .

[25]  Michael N. Jones,et al.  Perceptual Inference Through Global Lexical Similarity , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[26]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[27]  Bruce Bridgeman,et al.  Space-independent modality-driven attentional capture in auditory, tactile and visual systems , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[28]  Jorge Luis Borges,et al.  Funes the Memorious , 1942 .

[29]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Perception of Auditory Motion Affects Language Processing , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  Six views of embodied cognition , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[31]  J. Elman.  On the Meaning of Words and Dinosaur Bones: Lexical Knowledge Without a Lexicon , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  Diane Pecher,et al.  A sharp image or a sharp knife: norms for the modality-exclusivity of 774 concept-property items , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[33]  J. Raven,et al.  THE COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF INTELLECTUAL ABILITY1 , 1948 .

[34]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  Brain Signatures of Meaning Access in Action Word Recognition , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[35]  J. F. Marques,et al.  Specialization and semantic organization: Evidence for multiple semantics linked to sensory modalities , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[36]  Jonathan Evans,et al.  Rationality and reasoning , 1996 .

[37]  Patrick Jeuniaux,et al.  Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic , 2008 .

[38]  C. Buss,et al.  Children's Brain Development Benefits from Longer Gestation , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[39]  M. Louwerse,et al.  Neurological Evidence Linguistic Processes Precede Perceptual Simulation in Conceptual Processing , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[40]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[41]  Diane Pecher,et al.  Verifying Properties from Different Modalities for Concepts Produces Switching Costs , 2002 .

[42]  Yvonne Freeh,et al.  Words And Rules The Ingredients Of Language , 2016 .

[43]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  Language and simulation in conceptual processing , 2008 .

[44]  付伶俐.  打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[45]  O. Hauk,et al.  Neurophysiological distinction of action words in the fronto‐central cortex , 2004, Human brain mapping.

[46]  Lisa Feldman Barrett,et al.  Grounding emotion in situated conceptualization , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[47]  Karim Nader,et al.  A bridge over troubled water: reconsolidation as a link between cognitive and neuroscientific memory research traditions. , 2010, Annual review of psychology.

[48]  Lawrence W Barsalou,et al.  Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. , 2003, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[49]  Lawrence W Barsalou,et al.  Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[50]  D. Kahneman.  Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics , 2003 .

[51]  A. Glenberg,et al.  What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[52]  Michael P. Kaschak,et al.  Perception of motion affects language processing , 2005, Cognition.

[53]  Sharlene D. Newman,et al.  Imagining material versus geometric properties of objects: an fMRI study. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[54]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Modelling Parsing Constraints with High-dimensional Context Space , 1997 .

[55]  B. Rossion,et al.  Fixation Patterns During Recognition of Personally Familiar and Unfamiliar Faces , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[56]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  Brain mechanisms linking language and action , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[57]  Bahador Bahrami,et al.  Motion Detection and Motion Verbs Affects Low-Level Visual Perception , 2007 .

[58]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A single-system account of semantic and lexical deficits in five semantic dementia patients , 2008, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[59]  S. Sloman.  The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. , 1996 .

[60]  A. Glenberg.  What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[61]  Dermot Lynott,et al.  Embodied Conceptual Combination , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[62]  Diane Pecher,et al.  Sensorimotor simulations underlie conceptual representations: Modality-specific effects of prior activation , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[63]  Louise Connell,et al.  Look but don’t touch: Tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words , 2010, Cognition.

[64]  Linda B. Smith.  Learning to Recognize Objects , 2003, Psychological science.

[65]  B. Bahrami,et al.  Motion Detection and Motion Verbs , 2007, Psychological science.

[66]  V. Jaswal.  The Effect of Vocabulary Size on Toddlers' Receptiveness to Unexpected Testimony About Category Membership. , 2007, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[67]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content , 2008, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[68]  Max M. Louwerse,et al.  A Taste of Words: Linguistic Context and Perceptual Simulation Predict the Modality of Words , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[69]  Jonathan Evans.  Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[70]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions , 2006, NeuroImage.

[71]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Verifying Different-Modality Properties for Concepts Produces Switching Costs , 2003, Psychological science.

[72]  Louise Connell,et al.  Flexible and fast: Linguistic shortcut affects both shallow and deep conceptual processing , 2013, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[73]  Alan Garnham,et al.  Switching Modalities in A Sentence Verification Task: ERP Evidence for Embodied Language Processing , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[74]  Angelo Cangelosi,et al.  The Mechanics of Embodiment: A Dialog on Embodiment and Computational Modeling , 2011, Front. Psychology.

[75]  Diane Pecher,et al.  Verifying visual properties in sentence verification facilitates picture recognition memory. , 2007, Experimental psychology.

[76]  Lera Boroditsky,et al.  Visual motion aftereffect from understanding motion language , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[77]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Knowledge Representation , 1998 .

[78]  R. Goebel,et al.  Local Discriminability Determines the Strength of Holistic Processing for Faces in the Fusiform Face Area , 2013, Front. Psychology.

[79]  Elizabeth F Loftus,et al.  Leading questions and the eyewitness report , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[80]  M. Louwerse,et al.  The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing , 2010, Cognition.

[81]  C. Gotay,et al.  Physical posture: Could it have regulatory or feedback effects on motivation and emotion? , 1982 .

[82]  Dermot Lynott,et al.  Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[83]  Karl G. D. Bailey,et al.  Good-Enough Representations in Language Comprehension , 2002 .