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.
Note: Papers marked with (*) are offered for student's presentation.
|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.
|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.
|17.10.||Common coding theory, motor simulation, mental simulation.||
♦ 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
|24.10.||Language as action.||
♦ Glenberg A. & Kaschak M. (2002)
Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558-565.
|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.
|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 (*)
|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.
|28.11.||Meaning as statistical covariation.||
♦ Landauer T., Dumais D. (2008)
Latent semantic analysis, Scholarpedia, 3(11):4356.
♦ 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
- Active participation during the semester (36%).
- Paper presentation (20%).
- Group presentation of a chosen (integrative) topic (14%).
- Final written-oral exam (30%).
- Overall grading: A (50-46), B (45-41), C (40-36), D (35-31), E (30-26), Fx (25-0).