The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Radical embodied cognitive science
Abstract
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. This paper briefly introduces radical embodied cognitive science (RECS) and places it in historical perspective. Radical embodied cognitive science is an interdisciplinary approach to psychology that combines ideas from the phenomenological tradition with ecological psychology and dynamical systems modeling. It is argued that radical embodied cognitive science has a long history; it is as a direct descendent of the Jamesian functionalist approach to psychology. This approach to psychology is contrasted with the current trend of supplementing standard cognitive psychology with occasional references to the body. In contrast with these trends, radical embodied cognitive science is skeptical of the explanatory usefulness of mental representations. The future prospects of radical embodied cognitive science and the broader functionalist framework are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action
Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1804_1 · Cited by 1,641
The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception
Grush, R. (2004) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x04000093 · Cited by 1,387
Affordances and Prospective Control: An Outline of the Ontology
Turvey, M. T. (1992) · Ecological Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15326969eco0403_3 · Cited by 933
Ecological laws of perceiving and acting: In reply to Fodor and Pylyshyn (1981)
Turvey, M. T., Shaw, R. E., Reed, E. S., & Mace, W. M. (1981) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(81)90002-0 · Cited by 679
Cited by
An integrated theory of language production and comprehension
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12001495 · Cited by 1,569
Toward a second-person neuroscience
Schilbach, L., Timmermans, B., Reddy, V., Costall, A., Bente, G., Schlicht, T., & Vogeley, K. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x12000660 · Cited by 1,510
Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain
Anderson, M. L. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000853 · Cited by 1,212
A Rich Landscape of Affordances
Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014) · Ecological Psychology · doi:10.1080/10407413.2014.958035 · Cited by 1,160
Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances
Bruineberg, J., & Rietveld, E. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00599 · Cited by 538
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2010-02-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 06
- Pages
- 47-3480-47-3480
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2091795526
- Cited by
- 1,143
- References
- 4
- Type
- book review
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Radical embodied cognitive science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.47-3480
- The paper
- Radical embodied cognitive science. (2010). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.47-3480
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
