The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inferences through imagined actions: Knowing by simulated doing.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Verbal thinking can be less accurate than visual or motor simulation.
“Prior work has also found that verbal thinking can be less accurate than visual or motor simulation (Schwartz & Black 1999; see also Aronowitz & Lombrozo 2020;Lombrozo 2019)”
From Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse (2024) · cites this paper as Schwartz & Black 1999
Psychologists have documented cases involving spatial reasoning in which humans generate more accurate responses after visual or motor simulation compared to verbal thinking.
“Psychologists have documented cases involving spatial reasoning in which humans generate more accurate responses after visual or motor simulation compared to verbal thinking.”
From Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse (2024) · cites this paper as Schwartz & Black (1999)
The improved performance in the non-verbal thinking condition for humans required spatial or motor intuition.
“The improved performance in the non-verbal thinking condition for humans required spatial or motor intuition”
From Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse (2024) · cites this paper as Schwartz & Black (1999)
In the spatial intuition task, participants were given drawings of two drinking glasses, one filled with water and one empty, and asked to estimate the level of water that the second glass would need to be filled to such that the two glasses, when tilted to a certain degree, would have the water they contain reach the rim of the glass at the same angle.
“In this task, participants were given drawings of two drinking glasses, one filled with water and one empty.They were asked to estimate the level of water that the second glass would need to be filled to such that the two glasses, when tilted to a certain degree, would have the water they contain reach the rim of the glass at the same angle (Schwartz & Black, 1999).”
From Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse (2024) · cites this paper as Schwartz & Black, 1999
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shunned and Admired: Montessori, Self-Determination, and a Case for Radical School Reform
Lillard, A. S. (2019) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09483-3 · Cited by 75
Liu, R., Geng, J., Wu, A. J., Sucholutsky, I., Lombrozo, T., & Griffiths, T. L. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.21333 · Cited by 6
“To investigate whether this applies to models, we replicate a cup-tilting task from Schwartz & Black (1999).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Schwartz, D. L., & Black, T.
- Affiliations
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- ORCID
- Schwartz, Daniel L.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 116-136
- ISSN
- 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1285
- OpenAlex
- W2000699390
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 1.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Keywords
- inference, knowledge acquisition, embodied cognition, mental simulation, action-based learning
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.
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
