Line 65: Line 65:
 
<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.  
 
<!--(<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.
+
[http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~ajyu/Teaching/Cogs202_sp12/Readings/barsalou08_grounded.pdf Grounded cognition]. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 59: 617-45.-->
 
|-
 
|-
 
|09.10.
 
|09.10.
Line 81: Line 81:
 
<!--a href="Slides/common-coding.4x.pdf">slides</a-->     
 
<!--a href="Slides/common-coding.4x.pdf">slides</a-->     
 
|
 
|
♦ 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://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/smith.motor-cogn-simul.chap06.pdf Motor cognition and mental simulation].
 
Chapter in Smith E. & Kosslyn S. (eds.): Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain, Prentice Hall, pp. 451-481. <br>
 
Chapter in Smith E. & Kosslyn S. (eds.): Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain, Prentice Hall, pp. 451-481. <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-->
Line 119: Line 119:
 
♦ Mirolli M., Parisi D. (2009).
 
♦ Mirolli M., Parisi D. (2009).
 
[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>
todo <br>
+
Sakai, K.L., Perlovsky, L., eds. (2015)  
<!--♦ Farkaš I., Malík T., Rebrová K. (2012).
+
[https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00436/full Language and Cognition]. Lausanne: Frontiers Media. <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).
+
[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)-->
+
 
|-
 
|-
 
|13.11.  
 
|13.11.  
|Symbol grounding, autonomous construction of meaning.
+
|Symbol grounding problem.
 
|
 
|
 
♦ 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)
+
Coradeschi S., Loutfi A., Wrede B. (2013). [http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/coradeschi.sgp-review.ki13.pdf A short review of symbol grounding in robotic and intelligent systems]. <i>Künstliche Intelligenz</i>, 27:129–136 <br>
[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-->
+
 
|-
 
|-
 
|20.11.
 
|20.11.
Line 148: Line 143:
 
♦ 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.<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.
+
Bruni E.,  Tran N.K., Baroni M. (2014)
 +
[http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/courses/GC/References/bruni.multimodal-distr-sem.jair14.pdf Multimodal distributional semantics]. <i>Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research</i>,  49, 1-47
 
|-
 
|-
 
|27.12.
 
|27.12.
Line 160: Line 156:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|04.12.
 
|04.12.
|tba
+
|Grounding abstract concepts.
|tba
+
|
 +
♦Borghi A.M., Barca L., Binkofski F., Tummolini L. (2018)
 +
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0121 Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain]. <i>Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B</i>, 373: 20170121<br>
 +
♦ Barsalou L.W., Dutriaux L., Scheepers C. (2018)
 +
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0144 Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts]. <i>Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B</i>, 373: 20170144
 
|-
 
|-
 
|11.12.
 
|11.12.
|Group discussion, reflection.
+
|Reflection, discussion.
|tba
+
|your mind
 
|}
 
|}
  

Revision as of 20:53, 11 September 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 (psychological, neural and computational). The course focus is on grounded (embodied) cognition, and its relation to 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.

News

11. 9. 2018
We start on Tuesday, 25th September.


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
25.09. Introduction to language and key issues about concepts.

♦ Wiki: Language
♦ Margolis E., Laurence S. (2014). Concepts, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

02.10. Towards 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.

09.10. Mirror neuron system -- and its role(s) in cognition.

♦ Rizzolatti G. & Sinigaglia C. (2010). The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: Interpretations and misinterpretations. Nature Rev. Neurosci., 11, 264-274.
♦ Ferrari PF, Rizzolatti G. (2014). Mirror neuron research: the past and the future. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 369: 20130169.

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

♦ Smith A.H. (2006). Motor cognition and mental simulation. Chapter in Smith E. & Kosslyn S. (eds.): Cognitive Psychology: Mind and Brain, Prentice Hall, pp. 451-481.
♦ 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

23.10. Language as action.

♦ Glenberg A. & Kaschak M. (2002) Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558-565.
♦ Arbib M., Gasser B., Barrès V. (2014). Language is handy but is it embodied?. Neuropsychologia, 55, 57–70.

30.10. 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.

06.11. Language as cognitive tool.

♦ 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
♦ Sakai, K.L., Perlovsky, L., eds. (2015) Language and Cognition. Lausanne: Frontiers Media.

13.11. Symbol grounding problem.

♦ 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.
♦ Coradeschi S., Loutfi A., Wrede B. (2013). A short review of symbol grounding in robotic and intelligent systems. Künstliche Intelligenz, 27:129–136

20.11. 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.
♦ Bruni E., Tran N.K., Baroni M. (2014) Multimodal distributional semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 49, 1-47

27.12. 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

04.12. Grounding abstract concepts.

♦Borghi A.M., Barca L., Binkofski F., Tummolini L. (2018) Varieties of abstract concepts: development, use and representation in the brain. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 373: 20170121
♦ Barsalou L.W., Dutriaux L., Scheepers C. (2018) Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 373: 20170144

11.12. Reflection, discussion. your mind


Grading

  • Activity during the semester (50%). This includes weekly submitting inputs to the moderator and an active participation during discussions.
  • Paper presentation and moderation (30%). You will select a topic for presentation, collect the inputs from other students in advance, organize them (details will be explained) and you will moderate the discussion.
  • Final reflection (20%). You will write a two-page essay, that will include answers to two points: 1. How you understood the main issues we dealt with (trying to include open questions, if any), 2. How the learnt content enriched your existing knowledge.
  • Overall grading (in %): A > 90, B > 80, C > 70, D > 60, E > 50, else Fx.