Line 51: Line 51:
 
|26.09.
 
|26.09.
 
|Introduction: concepts, language components, computational approaches to language processing.
 
|Introduction: concepts, language components, computational approaches to language processing.
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/lang-intro.4x.pdf slides]
+
<!--[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/lang-intro.4x.pdf slides]-->
 
|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language Language]
 
|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language Language]
 
|-
 
|-
Line 58: Line 58:
 
|
 
|
 
♦ Wilson M. (2002).
 
♦ Wilson M. (2002).
[http://www.indiana.edu/~cogdev/labwork/WilsonSixViewsofEmbodiedCog.pdf Six views of embodied cognition]. <i>Psychonomics Bulletin Review,</i> 9(4), 625-636.  [http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/wilson.4x.pdf slides]<br>
+
[http://www.indiana.edu/~cogdev/labwork/WilsonSixViewsofEmbodiedCog.pdf Six views of embodied cognition]. <i>Psychonomics Bulletin Review,</i> 9(4), 625-636.  <!--[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/wilson.4x.pdf slides]--><br>
 
♦ 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. (Ales O.)
+
<i>Proc. of the 25th Annual Conf. of the Cog. Sci. Society</i>, 1134-1139.  
 
<!--(<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]. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59: 617-45. (Caroline H.)
+
[http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~ajyu/Teaching/Cogs202_sp12/Readings/barsalou08_grounded.pdf Grounded cognition]. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59: 617-45.
 
|-
 
|-
 
|10.10.
 
|10.10.
Line 70: Line 70:
 
|
 
|
 
♦ Rizzolatti G. & Sinigaglia C. (2010).
 
♦ Rizzolatti G. & Sinigaglia C. (2010).
[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. [http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/mns.4x.pdf slides]  <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. <!--[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/mns.4x.pdf slides]--> <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. (Sara J.)
+
[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.  
 
|-
 
|-
 
|17.10.
 
|17.10.
Line 93: Line 93:
 
|
 
|
 
♦ Glenberg A. & Kaschak M. (2002)
 
♦ Glenberg A. & Kaschak M. (2002)
[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. [http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/glenberg.lang-action.4x.pdf slides]<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. <!--[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/glenberg.lang-action.4x.pdf slides]--><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. (Anja L.)<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>
Line 110: Line 110:
 
|
 
|
 
♦ Barsalou L. et al. (2008).  
 
♦ Barsalou L. et al. (2008).  
[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. [http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/barsalou.lass.4x.pdf slides]<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. <!--[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/barsalou.lass.4x.pdf slides]--><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. (Marko B.)
 
[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.)
Line 121: Line 121:
 
[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 (Franz P.)<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<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 (Anze I.)
+
[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)
 
|-
 
|-
 
|21.11.  
 
|21.11.  
Line 129: Line 129:
 
|
 
|
 
♦ Steels L. (2008)
 
♦ Steels L. (2008)
[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. [http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/steels.grounding.4x.pdf slides]<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. <!--[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/steels.grounding.4x.pdf slides]--><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. (Isabela B.)
+
[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.
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/hosseini.takac.pdf">Rahil H.</a>)<br-->
 
<!--(<a href="courses/GroundedCog/Moderation/hosseini.takac.pdf">Rahil H.</a>)<br-->
 
|-
 
|-
Line 147: Line 147:
 
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. (Tim R.)<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.<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. (Dafne M.)
+
♦ Mikolov T. et al. (2013). [https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781 Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space]. ArXiv.org, Cornell University Library.
 
|-
 
|-
 
|05.12.
 
|05.12.
Line 155: Line 155:
 
|
 
|
 
♦ Louwerse M. (2010).
 
♦ Louwerse M. (2010).
[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 [http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/louwerse.sihypo.4x.pdf slides]<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 <!--[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/Slides/louwerse.sihypo.4x.pdf slides]--><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 (Tomaz B.)
+
[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
 
|-
 
|-
 
|12.12.
 
|12.12.

Revision as of 16:31, 22 June 2018

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. Slides of your presentations are here.

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.
♦ Barsalou L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59: 617-45.

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.

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
♦ 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.

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.
♦ Mikolov T. et al. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. ArXiv.org, Cornell University Library.

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

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).