The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 11 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action
Open accessAbstract
We present data and argument to show that in Tetris—a real‐time, interactive video game—certain cognitive and perceptual problems are more quickly, easily, and reliably solved by performing actions in the world than by performing computational actions in the head alone. We have found that some of the translations and rotations made by players of this video game are best understood as actions that use the world to improve cognition. These actions are not used to implement a plan, or to implement a reaction; they are used to change the world in order to simplify the problem‐solving task. Thus, we distinguish pragmatic actions—actions performed to bring one physically closer to a goal—from epistemic actions—actions performed to uncover informatioan that is hidden or hard to compute mentally. To illustrate the need for epistemic actions, we first develop a standard information‐processing model of Tetris cognition and show that it cannot explain performance data from human players of the game—even when we relax the assumption of fully sequential processing. Standard models disregard many actions taken by players because they appear unmotivated or superfluous. However, we show that such actions are actually far from superfluous; they play a valuable role in improving human performance. We argue that traditional accounts are limited because they regard action as having a single function: to change the world. By recognizing a second function of action—an epistemic function—we can explain many of the actions that a traditional model cannot. Although our argument is supported by numerous examples specifically from Tetris, we outline how the new category of epistemic action can be incorporated into theories of action more generally.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper argues that Tetris players perform some rotations and translations not to advance a physical goal but to simplify cognition, introducing epistemic actions as distinct from pragmatic actions. A classical sequential information-processing model and an interleaving variant fail to explain extra rotations and translate-to-wall routines, which are better explained as actions that uncover information, reduce mental rotation, or verify placement.
Key findings
- Players rotate zoids more than expected for purely pragmatic placement: each zoid is rotated more than half its possible rotations; for a shape with four distinct orientations, the expected average would be 1.5 rotations, but observed rotations exceed this. Rotations sometimes begin before 100 ms, before the zoid is fully visible.
- Early rotation can expose hidden parts 150 to 300 ms earlier than waiting for natural appearance; partially hidden zoids ambiguous in both shape and position are more likely to be rotated than those ambiguous in shape alone, though no player reported noticing that zoids begin falling in different columns.
- Physical rotation of a zoid 90° can take as few as 100 ms, whereas mental rotation of a zoid 90° is estimated at 800 to 1200 ms. The translate-to-wall verification routine occurs in about 1% of drops; experts drop a zoid on average 15.65 squares from resting position ordinarily versus 20.05 squares after the translate routine, with intermediate players 13.18 versus 19.04 and advanced players 13.69 versus 19.33.
- The translate-to-wall routine moves the zoid away from the intended column, so it cannot be a pragmatically good move; its function is to verify the column and reduce error, and higher drops are more likely to be verified this way.
Methods
- Design: Tetris was used as a real-time, interactive video game domain; the authors implemented a computational laboratory to unobtrusively record the timing of all keystrokes and game situations, collected tachistoscopic mental rotation tests, and designed and implemented the RoboTetris expert system to compare human and machine performance.
- Sample: the mental rotation pilot had three Tetris players—one intermediate, one advanced, and one expert—each seeing eight presentations of each possible pair of L-shaped or S-shaped zoids; human gameplay data came from subjects playing Tetris.
- Analysis: a classical four-phase information-processing model was constructed (bitmap representation, chunked symbolic representation, placement computation, motor plan computation), then relaxed to allow cascade/interleaving; model predictions such as expected rotation counts were compared with observed keystroke timing and frequency, and deviations were interpreted as epistemic actions.
Limitations
- The paper states it is often hard to prove that an agent performs a particular action for epistemic rather than pragmatic reasons, because an action can serve both epistemic and pragmatic purposes simultaneously, making the relative influence difficult to quantify.
- The paper states it is an open question whether agents use multiple-perspective representations of zoids; the mental rotation data are described as pilot data from only three players, so the mental rotation time estimates are preliminary.
- Evident from the text: many epistemic interpretations are inferred from timing and behavioral regularities rather than direct experimental manipulation, and the mental rotation comparison rests on a very small sample.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
74 Own interpretation · 18 No basis given · 15 Own result · 4 Sources not found · 2 No full text of the sources · 1 Own method
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By rotating an emerging zoid, players can expose its hidden parts, thereby uncovering its complete visual image 150 to 300 ms earlier than if they waited for it to appear naturally.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have observed that occasionally a zoid will be rotated very early (before 100 ms), well before we would expect an agent to have any good idea of where to place the zoid.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 1, experts drop a zoid, on average, when it is about 13 squares from its rest- ing position.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shortest time between keystrokes in our data is about 75 ms”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as shown in Figure 15, the greater the drop distance, the more likely the drop will be verified using the translate-to-wall routine.”
- Also stated in: § 546 KIRSH AND MAGLIO · plain
“we found that the higher the drop, the more often the translate-to-wall routine is used.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 546 KIRSH AND MAGLIO · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rotations and translations occur in abundance, almost from the moment a zoid enters the Tetris screen.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the average time between keystrokes is around 250 ms”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our observations, however, indicate that agents learn qualitatively different behavioral tricks.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our data show that a player is more likely to rotate a partially hidden zoid that is ambiguous in both shape and position than one ambiguous in shape alone.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But we have found at least one unambiguously epistemic use of transiation: to verify judgment of the column of a zoid.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- It may state two separate claims as one. 8
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fewer than 10 hours, a newcomer can play at an intermediate level.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Agents learn how to expose information early, how to prime themselves to recognize zoids faster, and how to perform external checks or verifications to reduce the uncertainty of judgments.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is particularly clear given that at 100 ms, the zoid is not yet completely in view, and sometimes the agent cannot even reliably guess the zoid's shape.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some players do report having hot spots in mind before an episode begins.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“P emerges in column 4, and R emerges in column 5”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, it is a fast, repetitive game requiring split-second decisions of a perceptual and cognitive sort.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In such studies, actions are defined as transformations in physical or social space.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are only four possible actions a player can take: translate a zoid right, translate left, rotate, and drop.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because time is at a premium in this game, a standard perfor- mance model would predict that players develop strategies that minimize the number of moves, creating sequences of pragmatic actions which head directly toward goal states.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects of rotating a zoid are wholly determinate.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only certain way to get information about new candidates into the iconic buffer is through perception.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Phase Three, players determine where to put the zoid.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“there are a host of separate brain regions involved in encoding the bitmap features in the iconic buffer. Some of these have close connections to motor cortex (Felleman & Van Essen, 1991; Sereno & Allman, 1991).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Felleman & Van Essen, 1991 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sereno & Allman, 1991
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Phase Three-the decision phase-rotation also serves a variety of epistemic functions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By definition, it requires moving the zoid away from the currently intended column, and hence it cannot be a pragmatically good move.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, such epistemic procedures may be cached, but they are not pragmatic procedures; they are procedures that direct the agent to exploit the environment to make the most of his or her limited cognitive resources.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“standard accounts of skill acquisition explain enhanced performance as the result of chunking, cach- ing, or compiling (Anderson, 1983; Newell, 1990; Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981; Reason, 1990).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Anderson, 1983
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Newell, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981; Reason, 1990
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is clearly in the interest of a player to identify the complete shape as soon as possible.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The processing model this suggests to us is a significant departure from classical theories of action. Its chief novelty lies in allowing individual func- tional units inside the agent to be in closed-loop interaction with the outside world.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the greater the drop height, the more in- formative the verification and the less risky (costly) the action.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is not outrageous to suppose that there is motor involvement in selective attention since there already exists a close connection between attention and the oculo- motor system responsible for saccades.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This kind of model follows the distributed framework proposed by Minsky (1986).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Minsky (1986)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The authors state this as an assumption.
Tetris cognition proceeds in four major phases.
“It is based on a classical information-processing model of expertise based on the sup- position that Tetris cognition proceeds in four major phases:”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The model is fully sequential: Phase Two is completed before Phase Three begins, and Three is completed before Four begins.
“As we have stated it, the model is fully sequential: Phase Two is completed before Phase Three begins, and Three is completed before Four begins.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Each zoid emerges in a random orientation, and on average any zoid can be expected to be placed in any of its orientations with equal probability.
“This follows because each zoid emerges in a random orientation, and on average, any zoid can be expected to be placed in any of its orientations with equal probability.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When a zoid first enters at the top of the screen, only a fraction of its total form is visible.
“When a zoid first enters at the top of the screen, only a fraction of its total form is visible.”
The paper relies on this without support.
At medium speed, a zoid descends at a rate of one square every 150 ms.
“At medium speed, a zoid descends at a rate of one square every 150 ms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The close coupling between attention and saccades is already accepted.
“The close coupling between attention and saccades is already accepted”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Matching is a primitive process in working memory: Zoid chunk and contour chunk can be compared and matched only if they are explicitly represented in working memory.
“So far we have assumed that matching is a primitive process in working memory: Zoid chunk and contour chunk can be compared and matched only if they are explicitly represented in working memory.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The local effects of an action in Tetris are totally determinate, with no hidden states, exogenous influences, or other agents to change the result of hitting the rotate key.
“The property of Tetris which makes such a strategy pay off is that the local effects of an action are totally determinate. There are no hidden states, exogenous influences, or other agents to change the result of hitting the rotate key.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Exploratory epistemic actions (Kirsh and Maglio, 1994) are performed to unveil hidden information or to gain insight that would otherwise require a great deal of mental computation.”
From Physical and Virtual Tools: Activity Theory Applied to the Design of Groupware (2002) · cites this paper as Kirsh and Maglio, 1994
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Empirically, such externalisations have been shown to improve problem-solving accuracy as well as speed (Kirsh & Maglio, 1994).”
From Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory (2021) · cites this paper as Kirsh & Maglio, 1994
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Hence, cognitive offloading with technical tools might enable performance beyond internal cognitive limitations and thus increase immediate performance (Kirsh & Maglio, 1994; Salomon & Perkins, 2005).”
From Consequences of cognitive offloading: Boosting performance but diminishing memory (2021) · cites this paper as Kirsh & Maglio, 1994
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Kirsh and Maglio (1994) argue that it is cognitively more economical to rotate the figure on screen by pushing a controller button than to mentally simulate the correct rotation.”
From The Cognitive Architecture of Digital Externalization (2023) · cites this paper as Kirsh and Maglio (1994)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 538 KIRSH AND MAGLIO
“As shown in Table 1, experts drop a zoid, on average, when it is about 13 squares from its rest- ing position. On those occasions when they also perform the translate-to- wall routine, the zoid is dropped, on average, from about 19 squares above its resting position”
§ 538 KIRSH AND MAGLIO
“Intermediate Advanced Expert M Drop Distance 13.18 13.69 15.65 M Drop Distance after Translate Routine 19.04 19.33 20.05”
Citations
Cites
Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex
Felleman, D. J., & Van Essen, D. C. (1991) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/1.1.1 · Cited by 7,783
Anderson, J. R. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9781315799438 · Cited by 6,761
Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.171.3972.701 · Cited by 6,246
Stigler, G. J. (1961) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/258464 · Cited by 5,332
Reason, J. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139062367 · Cited by 5,108
(1983) · Cited by 5,041
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5376 · Cited by 4,218
The information available in brief visual presentations
Sperling, G. (1960) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0093759 · Cited by 4,042
A Generative Theory of Tonal Music
Child, P., Lerdahl, F., & Jackendoff, R. S. (1984) · Computer Music Journal · doi:10.2307/3679778 · Cited by 3,750
The Psychology of Everyday Things
Massaro, D. W., & Norman, D. A. (1990) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1423268 · Cited by 3,484
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Hutchins E., 1990, Intellectual teamwork: Social and technical bases of collaborative work, 191
- Kirsh D., 1990, Information, language, and cognition, 340
- Kosslyn S., 1990, Visual cognition and action, 73
- Neisser U., 1967, Cognitive psychology.
- Simmons R., 1992, Control of selective perception.
- Tate A., 1990, Readings in Planning, 26
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998) · Analysis · doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7 · Cited by 6,333
Six views of embodied cognition
Wilson, M. (2002) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196322 · Cited by 4,782
“For example, Kirsh and Maglio (1994) have studied the procedures ! 9/2/03 4:43 PM Six Views of Embodied Cognition”
InfluentialBeing There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again.
van Gelder, T., & Clark, A. (1998) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2998391 · Cited by 3,134
Being there: putting brain, body, and world together again
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-6204 · Cited by 2,631
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/353485.353487 · Cited by 2,300
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kirsh, David
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-10
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 513-549
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- 1551-6709
- OpenAlex
- W2128922568
- Cited by
- 1,641
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 123 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 112 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 104 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 83 · 2012: 57
- FWCI
- 4.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Keywords
- epistemic actions, Tetris, video gaming, cognition and action, information processing model, problem solving, philosophy of action
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-12, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-12 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15516709cog1804_1
- The paper
- Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1804_1
