Riadok 62: Riadok 62:
 
♦ Ziemke T. (2003).
 
♦ Ziemke T. (2003).
 
[http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2003/pdfs/244.pdf What's that thing called embodiment?]   
 
[http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2003/pdfs/244.pdf What's that thing called embodiment?]   
<i>Proc. of the 25th Annual Conf. of the Cog. Sci. Society</i>, 1134-1139. (*)
+
<i>Proc. of the 25th Annual Conf. of the Cog. Sci. Society</i>, 1134-1139. (Ales O.)
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/grujicic.ziemke.pdf">Lidija G.</a>)--><br>
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/grujicic.ziemke.pdf">Lidija G.</a>)--><br>
 
♦ Barsalou L. (2008).  
 
♦ Barsalou L. (2008).  
 
[http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~ajyu/Teaching/Cogs202_sp12/Readings/barsalou08_grounded.pdf Grounded cognition]
 
[http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~ajyu/Teaching/Cogs202_sp12/Readings/barsalou08_grounded.pdf Grounded cognition]
</a>. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59: 617-45. (*)
+
</a>. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59: 617-45. (Caroline H.)
 
|-
 
|-
 
|10.10.
 
|10.10.
Riadok 75: Riadok 75:
 
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/rizzolatti.mns.nrn10.pdf The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: Interpretations and misinterpretations]. <i>Nature Rev. Neurosci.,</i> 11, 264-274.<br>
 
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/rizzolatti.mns.nrn10.pdf The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: Interpretations and misinterpretations]. <i>Nature Rev. Neurosci.,</i> 11, 264-274.<br>
 
♦ Giese M. & Rizzolatti G. (2015).  
 
♦ Giese M. & Rizzolatti G. (2015).  
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/giese.visual-motor-reps.neuron15.pdf Neural and computational mechanisms of action processing: Interaction between visual and motor representations]. <i>Neuron,</i> 88, 167-180. (*)
+
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/giese.visual-motor-reps.neuron15.pdf Neural and computational mechanisms of action processing: Interaction between visual and motor representations]. <i>Neuron,</i> 88, 167-180. (Sara J.)
 
|-
 
|-
 
|17.10.
 
|17.10.
Riadok 81: Riadok 81:
 
<!--a href="Slides/common-coding.4x.pdf">slides</a-->     
 
<!--a href="Slides/common-coding.4x.pdf">slides</a-->     
 
|
 
|
♦ van der Wel R., Sebanz N., Knoblich G. (2013).
 
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/vanderwel.common-coding.xx11.pdf Action perception from a common coding perspective]. Chapter in K. Johnson and M. Schiffrar (Eds.), <i>People Watching: Social, Perceptual, and Neurophysiological Studies of Body Perception</i>, Oxford University Press<br>
 
 
♦ Jeannerod M.J. (2001).  
 
♦ Jeannerod M.J. (2001).  
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/jeannerod.simul-action.nimg01.pdf Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition], <i>NeuroImage</i>, 14, 103–109, doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0832 (*) <br>
+
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/jeannerod.simul-action.nimg01.pdf Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition], <i>NeuroImage</i>, 14, 103–109, doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0832 <br>
 
♦ Smith A.H. (2006).
 
♦ Smith A.H. (2006).
 
[http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~ashas/Cognition%20Textbook/chapter11.pdf Motor cognition and mental simulation].
 
[http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~ashas/Cognition%20Textbook/chapter11.pdf Motor cognition and mental simulation].
Chapter in Smith E. & Kosslyn S. (eds.): Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain, Prentice Hall, 2007, pp. 451-481. (*)
+
Chapter in Smith E. & Kosslyn S. (eds.): Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain, Prentice Hall, 2007, pp. 451-481. (Imani R.)<br>
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/knez.motor-cog.pdf">Simon K.</a>)<br-->
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/knez.motor-cog.pdf">Simon K.</a>)<br-->
 +
♦ van der Wel R., Sebanz N., Knoblich G. (2013).
 +
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/vanderwel.common-coding.xx11.pdf Action perception from a common coding perspective]. Chapter in K. Johnson and M. Schiffrar (Eds.), <i>People Watching: Social, Perceptual, and Neurophysiological Studies of Body Perception</i>, Oxford University Press (Gregory B.)<br>
 
|-
 
|-
 
|24.10.
 
|24.10.
Riadok 98: Riadok 98:
 
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/glenberg.lang-action.psychrevbul02.pdf Grounding language in action]. <i>Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,</i> 9(3), 558-565.<br>
 
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/glenberg.lang-action.psychrevbul02.pdf Grounding language in action]. <i>Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,</i> 9(3), 558-565.<br>
 
♦ Pulvermueller F. (2005)
 
♦ Pulvermueller F. (2005)
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/pulvermueller.lang-action.nrn05.pdf Brain mechanisms linking language and action]. <i>Nature Rev. Neurosci.,</i> 6(7), 576-582. (*)<br>
+
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/pulvermueller.lang-action.nrn05.pdf Brain mechanisms linking language and action]. <i>Nature Rev. Neurosci.,</i> 6(7), 576-582. (Anja L.)<br>
 
♦ Arbib M., Gasser B., Barrès V. (2014).  
 
♦ Arbib M., Gasser B., Barrès V. (2014).  
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/arbib.lang-emb.npsy14.pdf Language is handy but is it embodied?]. <i>Neuropsychologia,</i> 55, 57–70. (*)
+
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/arbib.lang-emb.npsy14.pdf Language is handy but is it embodied?]. <i>Neuropsychologia,</i> 55, 57–70. (Alja D.)
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/reichl.arbib.pdf">Dominik R.</a>)<br-->
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/reichl.arbib.pdf">Dominik R.</a>)<br-->
 
|-
 
|-
Riadok 115: Riadok 115:
 
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/barsalou.lang-simul.ch08.pdf Language and simulation in conceptual processing]. In: de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser (eds), <i>Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition</i>, OUP, 245-283.<br>
 
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/barsalou.lang-simul.ch08.pdf Language and simulation in conceptual processing]. In: de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser (eds), <i>Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition</i>, OUP, 245-283.<br>
 
♦ Evans V. (2009).  
 
♦ Evans V. (2009).  
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/evans.lccm.ch09.pdf Semantic representation in LCCM Theory]. In: New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. By V. Evans & S. Pourcel. John Benjamins. (*)
+
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/evans.lccm.ch09.pdf Semantic representation in LCCM Theory]. In: New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. By V. Evans & S. Pourcel. John Benjamins. (Marko B.)
 
|-
 
|-
 
|14.11.
 
|14.11.
Riadok 127: Riadok 127:
 
[http://laral.istc.cnr.it/mirolli/papers/MirolliParisi2011TowardsVygotskyanCognitiveRobotics.pdf Towards a Vygotskyan cognitive robotics: The role of language as a cognitive tool]. <i>New Ideas in Psychology</i>, doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.001<br>
 
[http://laral.istc.cnr.it/mirolli/papers/MirolliParisi2011TowardsVygotskyanCognitiveRobotics.pdf Towards a Vygotskyan cognitive robotics: The role of language as a cognitive tool]. <i>New Ideas in Psychology</i>, doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.001<br>
 
♦ Farkaš I., Malík T., Rebrová K. (2012).
 
♦ Farkaš I., Malík T., Rebrová K. (2012).
[http://www.frontiersin.org/neurorobotics/10.3389/fnbot.2012.00001/abstract Grounding the meanings in sensorimotor behavior using reinforcement learning]. <i>Frontiers in Neurorobotics</i> 6(1). doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2012.00001 (*)<br>
+
[http://www.frontiersin.org/neurorobotics/10.3389/fnbot.2012.00001/abstract Grounding the meanings in sensorimotor behavior using reinforcement learning]. <i>Frontiers in Neurorobotics</i> 6(1). doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2012.00001 (Franz P.)<br>
 
♦ Lallee S. et al. (2010).
 
♦ Lallee S. et al. (2010).
 
[http://www.frontiersin.org/neurorobotics/10.3389/fnbot.2010.00008/abstract Linking language with embodied and teleological representations of action for humanoid cognition]. <i>Frontiers in Neurorobotics</i>, doi:10.3389.10/fnbot.2010.00008 (*)
 
[http://www.frontiersin.org/neurorobotics/10.3389/fnbot.2010.00008/abstract Linking language with embodied and teleological representations of action for humanoid cognition]. <i>Frontiers in Neurorobotics</i>, doi:10.3389.10/fnbot.2010.00008 (*)
Riadok 138: Riadok 138:
 
[https://ai.vub.ac.be/sites/default/files/steels-08e.pdf The symbol grounding problem has been solved, so what’s next?]. In: de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser (eds), <i>Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition,</i> OUP, 223-244.<br>
 
[https://ai.vub.ac.be/sites/default/files/steels-08e.pdf The symbol grounding problem has been solved, so what’s next?]. In: de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser (eds), <i>Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition,</i> OUP, 223-244.<br>
 
♦ Takáč M. (2008)
 
♦ Takáč M. (2008)
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/takac.cogsys08.pdf Autonomous construction of ecologically and socially relevant semantics]. <i>Cognitive Systems Research</i>, 9(4): 293-311. (*)
+
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/takac.cogsys08.pdf Autonomous construction of ecologically and socially relevant semantics]. <i>Cognitive Systems Research</i>, 9(4): 293-311. (Isabela B.)
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/hosseini.takac.pdf">Rahil H.</a>)<br-->
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/hosseini.takac.pdf">Rahil H.</a>)<br-->
 
|-
 
|-
Riadok 154: Riadok 154:
 
OUP, 309-326.<br-->
 
OUP, 309-326.<br-->
 
♦ Glenberg, A. M., & Mehta, S. (2008)
 
♦ Glenberg, A. M., & Mehta, S. (2008)
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/glenberg.covar-not-meaning.ling09.pdf Constraint on covariation: It’s not meaning]. <i>Italian Journal of Linguistics,</i> 20, 33-53. (*)<br>
+
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/glenberg.covar-not-meaning.ling09.pdf Constraint on covariation: It’s not meaning]. <i>Italian Journal of Linguistics,</i> 20, 33-53. (Tim R.)<br>
♦ Mikolov T. et al. (2013). [https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781 Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space]. ArXiv.org, Cornell University Library. (*)
+
♦ Mikolov T. et al. (2013). [https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781 Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space]. ArXiv.org, Cornell University Library. (Dafne M.)
 
|-
 
|-
 
|05.12.
 
|05.12.
Riadok 164: Riadok 164:
 
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/louwerse.symbol-interdependency.topics10.pdf Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition]. <i>Topics in Cognitive Science,</i> 1-30, doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x<br>
 
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/louwerse.symbol-interdependency.topics10.pdf Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition]. <i>Topics in Cognitive Science,</i> 1-30, doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x<br>
 
♦ Dove G. (2011).  
 
♦ Dove G. (2011).  
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242 On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition]. <i>Frontiers in Psychology,</i> 1:242, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242 (*)
+
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242 On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition]. <i>Frontiers in Psychology,</i> 1:242, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242 (Marko B.)
 
|-
 
|-
 
|12.12.
 
|12.12.

Verzia zo dňa a času 10:49, 29. september 2017

Grounded Cognition – 2-IKV-236/15

The course objective is to provide students with deeper insight into up-to-date research trends in cognitive science, from the perspective of various disciplines (empirical and computational). The course focus is on grounded (embodied) cognition, with emphasis on language. The course should also help students in their ability to interpret scientific papers, to formulate, present and defend ideas.

The course is a part of Master Programme in Cognitive Science.


Course schedule

Type Day Time Room Lecturer
Lecture Tuesday 10:00 I-23 Igor Farkaš
Presentations Tuesday 11:40 I-23 students


Syllabus


Note: Papers marked with (*) are offered for student's presentation.

Date Topic References
26.09. Introduction: concepts, language components, computational approaches to language processing. Language
03.10. Towards embodied cognition. Contrasting symbolic and embodied cognition.

♦ Wilson M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomics Bulletin Review, 9(4), 625-636.
♦ Ziemke T. (2003). What's that thing called embodiment? Proc. of the 25th Annual Conf. of the Cog. Sci. Society, 1134-1139. (Ales O.)
♦ Barsalou L. (2008). Grounded cognition </a>. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59: 617-45. (Caroline H.)

10.10. Mirror neuron system -- prerequisite for action understanding, social cognition and language?

♦ Rizzolatti G. & Sinigaglia C. (2010). The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: Interpretations and misinterpretations. Nature Rev. Neurosci., 11, 264-274.
♦ Giese M. & Rizzolatti G. (2015). Neural and computational mechanisms of action processing: Interaction between visual and motor representations. Neuron, 88, 167-180. (Sara J.)

17.10. Common coding theory, motor simulation, mental simulation.

♦ Jeannerod M.J. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition, NeuroImage, 14, 103–109, doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0832
♦ Smith A.H. (2006). Motor cognition and mental simulation. Chapter in Smith E. & Kosslyn S. (eds.): Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain, Prentice Hall, 2007, pp. 451-481. (Imani R.)
♦ van der Wel R., Sebanz N., Knoblich G. (2013). Action perception from a common coding perspective. Chapter in K. Johnson and M. Schiffrar (Eds.), People Watching: Social, Perceptual, and Neurophysiological Studies of Body Perception, Oxford University Press (Gregory B.)

24.10. Language as action.

♦ Glenberg A. & Kaschak M. (2002) Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558-565.
♦ Pulvermueller F. (2005) Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Rev. Neurosci., 6(7), 576-582. (Anja L.)
♦ Arbib M., Gasser B., Barrès V. (2014). Language is handy but is it embodied?. Neuropsychologia, 55, 57–70. (Alja D.)

31.10. No class. (holiday)
07.11. Conceptual and linguistic systems - two theories.

♦ Barsalou L. et al. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In: de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser (eds), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition, OUP, 245-283.
♦ Evans V. (2009). Semantic representation in LCCM Theory. In: New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. By V. Evans & S. Pourcel. John Benjamins. (Marko B.)

14.11. Developmental cognitive robotics.

♦ Mirolli M., Parisi D. (2009). Towards a Vygotskyan cognitive robotics: The role of language as a cognitive tool. New Ideas in Psychology, doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.001
♦ Farkaš I., Malík T., Rebrová K. (2012). Grounding the meanings in sensorimotor behavior using reinforcement learning. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 6(1). doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2012.00001 (Franz P.)
♦ Lallee S. et al. (2010). Linking language with embodied and teleological representations of action for humanoid cognition. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, doi:10.3389.10/fnbot.2010.00008 (*)

21.11. Symbol grounding, autonomous construction of meaning.

♦ Steels L. (2008) The symbol grounding problem has been solved, so what’s next?. In: de Vega, Glenberg & Graesser (eds), Symbols and Embodiment: Debates on Meaning and Cognition, OUP, 223-244.
♦ Takáč M. (2008) Autonomous construction of ecologically and socially relevant semantics. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(4): 293-311. (Isabela B.)

28.11. Meaning as statistical covariation.

♦ Landauer T., Dumais D. (2008) Latent semantic analysis, Scholarpedia, 3(11):4356. wiki
♦ Glenberg, A. M., & Mehta, S. (2008) Constraint on covariation: It’s not meaning. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20, 33-53. (Tim R.)
♦ Mikolov T. et al. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. ArXiv.org, Cornell University Library. (Dafne M.)

05.12. Unification attempts.

♦ Louwerse M. (2010). Symbol interdependency in symbolic and embodied cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1-30, doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01106.x
♦ Dove G. (2011). On the need for embodied and dis-embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 1:242, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00242 (Marko B.)

12.12. Group discussion, reflection. tba


Grading

  • Active participation during the course (40%).
  • Paper presentation (20%).
  • Final written-oral exam (40%).
  • Overall grading: A (50-46), B (45-41), C (40-36), D (35-31), E (30-26), Fx (25-0).