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
Items 1,401–1,470 of 1,470
Dokic, J. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780191976650.003.0011
Manners Matter: Action History Guides Attention and Repair Choices During Interaction
Singh, A., Wrede, B., Richter, B., Groß, A., & Rohlfing, K. J. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL) · doi:10.1109/icdl63968.2025.11204385 · Cited by 1
“When faced with uncertainty, our cognition dynamically shifts both outward and inward, relying on external situational cues available in the moment and drawing on internal experiences [31], [56].”
Bruni, E., & Lefsrud, L. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198953067.003.0001
Tik-Tik: A Video Game for the Study of Search in Problem Solving
Dimov, C. M., & Bavelier, D. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-10518-9_17
Cognitive roles and time scales of environmental resources in 4E cognition
Xia, Y.-H. (2025) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-025-05352-5
“The example of Tetris , originally introduced by Kirsh and Maglio ( 1994 ), typifies the spirit of embedded cognition, though it was later used by Clark and Chalmers (1998) to argue for extended cognition.”
Tracking devices as extensions of the mind
Schmidli, X. (2025) · Journal of the Philosophy of Sport · doi:10.1080/00948705.2025.2580454
“This type of action, that includes internal and external processes, is also called ‘epistemic actions’, as proposed by Kirsh and Maglio (1994).”
Catalanotti, C. (2025) · Perspectives in architecture and urbanism. · doi:10.1016/j.pau.2025.100050
Decision-Making in Repeated Games: Insights from Active Inference
Yuan, H., Wang, L., Gao, W., Tao, T., & Fan, C. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15121727 · Cited by 1
“In the mathematical formulation of ex‑ pected free energy, pragmatic value motivates exploitative behavior, whereas epistemic value promotes exploratory actions (Kirsh & Maglio, 1994).”
Design Space Exploration in the Shape Machine Interface
Woodbury, R. (2025) · Mathematics and the built environment · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-81623-9_17
How Do Animations Influence Learning?
Ainsworth, S. (2008) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-60752-942-220251004
Kimmel, M. (2026) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2026.106209 · Cited by 1
Embodied Archives of Complex Motor Action
Bläsing, B. E. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197575017.003.0026
Spellbound by Technology: Augmented Reality, Artificial Intelligence, and Automagic
Pirandello, S. (2026) · Lecture notes in morphogenesis · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08726-3_6
Xie, N., Wang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2026) · Journal of Eye Movement Research · doi:10.3390/jemr19020027
“From a cognitive perspective, interaction can also function as epistemic action: external actions (e.g., moving or placing an object) can reduce internal computation and support problem solving [39].”
Being Where? Putting Memory, Technology, and Wayfinding Together Again
Mingon, M., Gillett, A. J., & Sutton, J. D. (2026) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-026-00816-0
Supporting Versatility in Tangible User Interfaces Using Collections of Small Actuated Objects
Goc, M. L. (2016) · doi:10.70675/edd2edf7z4df5z4cbfz8af6z82c8398ddb0f · Cited by 1
“Epistemic actions are “actions performed to uncover information that is hidden or hard to compute mentally” [Kirsh and Maglio, 1994], while pragmatic actions have functional outcomes.”
BackgroundAcceptation et utilisation d'outils : vers une approche cognitive
Alexandre, B. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/b998b2fez2937z4e20z8eb3zfb12f492063e
La lecture incarnée : étude de l'implication corporelle dans l'engagement cognitif
Ballenghein, U. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/40e79149z3fc1z49fdz8368z00db0289bbab
The role of spontaneous movements in spatial orientation and navigation
Popescu, S. T. (2018) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/4221eac0zaa58z49d8z82edz99d793660bab
Les représentations en mathématiques
Waszek, D. (2018) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/e40763a3ze247z4c23zb8d7zc5a2807d32a5 · Cited by 1
La consommation des objets connectés : une approche par la théorie de l'assemblage
Alami, Y. E. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/59f8edcbz94d2z41a0z8bc3z8821651e24da
Tabletop tangible maps and diagrams for visually impaired users
Ducasse, J. (2017) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/3c9498ddzfbdbz4ab7z8bafz7dda0a7a88a5 · Cited by 1
Ensamblaje Perceptivo de la Ciencia
González, A. M. (2026) · Teorema: Revista internacional de filosofía · doi:10.30827/trif.35801
Conceptualizing Creative Styles in Technology-Mediated Artistic Practices
Hsueh, S.-Y. (2020) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/9226d205z14a0z47b6za1f5zfbc696a2aa6a
The role of aesthetics in understanding source code
Depaz, P. (2023) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/4ab81617z02c6z4f81zac63z07da24d71e00 · Cited by 2
Entangled cognition: algorithmic power and the limits of cognitive extension
Gahrn-Andersen, R. (2026) · Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science · doi:10.1007/s41809-026-00202-3 · Cited by 2
“Such actions are defined as ‘‘actions performed to uncover information that is hidden or hard to compute mentally’’ (Kirsh & Maglio, 1994, p. 513).”
Yu, Y., Corino, G., & Arrivabene, R. M. C. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2658245
Collaborative and Co-creative Communication with AI
Geroimenko, V. (2026) · Human-computer interaction series · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-21689-2_6
Cheng, P. (2026) · International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2026.100826
Juvrud, J., Salembier, K., Delany, M., et al. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2026.109055
“This allows experienced players to offload the mechanics of input to the motor cortex, freeing foveal attention to focus exclusively on task-critical screen information rather than the interface itself (Kirsh & Maglio, 1994).”
Jiang, T. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14050089
From Complexity to Clarity: Confronting Situated Cognition’s Motley Crew Argument
Casper, M.-O. (2026) · Adaptive Behavior · doi:10.1177/10597123261452099
Chemistry Students’ Epistemic Practices in Reasoning About Black-Box Molecular Dynamics SimulationsPreprint
Thiel, M., Kolodzeiski, E., Roemelt, M., Podewitz, M., Tiemann, R., Zupan, H., Schaefer, J.-L., & Krewald, V. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6875451
Resisting epistemic loss in AI image generation
Safir, A. H., Blackwell, A. F., & Debnath, R. (2026) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2026.101568
The modal-modular model of animal self-representation: a comparative and operational framework
Khvatov, I. A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1885694
Phase-Sensitive Gaze Allocation in a Progressive Calligraphy Task
Liu, Y., Xie, N., Tong, X., & Wang, Y. (2026) · Journal of Eye Movement Research · doi:10.3390/jemr19040069
A Gestural Lexicon for Augmented Reality Sandbox Interaction
Hirata, A. I., & Kawamoto, A. L. S. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29586-6_35
InteractiveChordScape: Democratizing Musical Understanding through Embodied Spatial Mixing in VR
Zhang, Y., & Li, Y. (2026) · doi:10.1145/3803784.3807560
“Our design leverages the psychoacoustic principle of "Spatial Release from Masking" [19] but deploys it through the lens of epistemic action [12].”
Çağdaş Zihin Felsefesinde Yeni Bir Ufuk: Bedenlenmiş Biliş Kuramı
Demir, V. M., & Surgun, S. (2026) · Felsefe Dünyası · doi:10.58634/felsefedunyasi.1788365
Bahadir, S., Syed, S. A., & D’Amico, R. S. (2026) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1227/neu.0000000000004166
Youlyouz, A. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10540945/v1
Dominek, D. L., Kapusi, V., Ceglédi, S., & Szűts, Z. (2026) · Computers · doi:10.3390/computers15080507
Varieties and dynamics of cognitive extensions via AI systems
Cassinadri, G., & Bianchini, F. (2026) · Cognitive Systems Research · doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2026.101507
Shoaraka, Z. B., & Ramey, K. E. (2026) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--58632
Zhang, Y., Wong, G. K. W., & Liang, B. (2026) · International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2026.100847
Tollefsen, D. P. (2026) · doi:10.1093/9780197565124.003.0025
Maturo, F., Micozzi, A., & Porreca, A. (2026) · SN Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/s43545-026-01683-3 · Cited by 1
“Those approaches supply the broader vocabulary for understanding how cognitive work is organised through human agents, artefacts, practices, and environments (Clark and Chalmers 1998 ; Hollan et al. 2000; Kirsh and Maglio 1994 ; Nguyen and Ho 2026 Risko and Gilbert 2016 ).”
A construção de uma prova visual em trigonometria – o modelo RBC+C e o GeoGebra
Pimenta, C. M. S., & Saraiva, M. J. (2026) · Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa · doi:10.12802/relime.2026.29.e678
Spatially Arranging is Knowing: Spatial Hypertext as Method for Digital Folkloristics
Eidloth, L., Slowik, S., Atzenbeck, C., et al. (2026) · doi:10.1145/3800935.3830886
“Spatial arrangements do not simply display relations; they organize interpretive attention by making some associations salient while leaving others latent or unresolved, thereby affording interpretive exploration [16, 17, 24].”
Caramihai, M. D., & Severin, I. (2026) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1017301
Kang, W., & Lee, B. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2720986
Ho, C. S. M., & Chen, J. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101329 · Cited by 1
Mal-Intelligence: how artificial intelligence produces a sustained illusion of cognitive competence
RAHHALI, M., & Aajly, A. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01398-4
“That vocabulary belongs more naturally to distributed cog - nition, where a central agent performs epistemic actions on external structure in order to reduce internal computational load [ 23 ].”
Inspirational Patterns for Human-Swarm Interaction Design
Bjurling, O., & Arvola, M. (2026) · Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3829807.3829860
Wójcik, S., Domienik‐Karłowicz, J., & Rulkiewicz, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1976313
Too Much Mind Extension? Towards a Virtue Ethics of the Extended Mind
Chlebowski, S., Ratajczyk, D., & Wyrwa, M. (2026) · Roczniki Filozoficzne · doi:10.18290/rf26743.6
SacredSpace VR: Deriving a Constitutive-Action Lens from Two Mixed Reality Ritual Prototypes
Rawat, P. S., Sachdeva, J., & Attri, R. (2026) · ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (SUI) · doi:10.1145/3822518.3839321
Thinking with Objects. Understanding Non-Representational Cognitive Artifacts
Trybulec, M., & Greif, H. (2026) · Review of Philosophy and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s13164-026-00848-6
Hangers and Straws: Designing Low-Cost Unplugged Activities for Primary-School Algorithms
Lodi, M. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-38887-2_4
Simple Agents Learning to Add Useful Structures to the World.
Stewart, T. C., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2004)
Externalist Evolutionary Cognitive Science
Poirier, P., & Faucher, L. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9014-7_32
Problematizing Epistemology in Computer Games Research
Mechtley, A. (2015) · International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations · doi:10.4018/ijgcms.2015040104
Conceptual Blending and Airplane Navigation
Holder, B. E., & Coulson, S. (2015)
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
