The strength of weak embodiment


the modulatory system
emergent materialism
cross-modal correspondence.

How to Cite

Tirado, C., Khatin-Zadeh, O., Gastelum, M., Jones, N., & Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2018). The strength of weak embodiment. International Journal of Psychological Research, 11(2), 77–85.


While popular within some cognitive science approaches, the embodiment approach has still found resistance, particularly in light of evidence arguing against strong forms of embodiment. Among other things, the embodiment approach breaks away from the Cartesian ontology of the modulatory system. We claim that the advantages of the embodiment approach are: a) it grounds cognition into modal experience, b) it is harmonious with a materialist philosophy of mind (emergent materialism), and c) it is supported by experimental research in various fields. However, embodiment must still address abstractions, theoretical misunderstandings (representations vs non-representations) and neuroscientific findings that challenge the extension and relevance of sensorimotor properties into cognitive processes. While the strong version of embodiment is seriously challenged by conceptual and physiological setbacks, its weak version is supported by compelling evidence. We suggest future research focus on the psychophysiological bases of grounded cognition and redirect efforts towards the field of cross-modal correspondence.


Agur, A. M. R., & Dalley, A. F. (2009). Grant’s atlas of anatomy. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Alsmith, A. J. T., & De Vignemont, F. (2012). Embodying the mind and representing the body. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(1), 1–13.

Augustine, J., Fitzpatrick, D., Hall, W., LaMantia, A., McNamara, J., Mooney, R., & Williams, S. (2008). Neuroscience. Sunderland, MA.

Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 637–660.

Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 617–645.

Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1983). Situations and attitudes (M. Cambridge, Ed.). MIT Press.

Beaton, M. (2016). Sensorimotor direct realism: howwe enact our world. Constructivist Foundations, 11(2), 265–276.

Binder, J., & Desai, R. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527–536.

Blakemore, S.-J., Bristow, D., Bird, G., Frith, C., & Ward, J. (2005). Somatosensory activations during the observation of touch and a case of vision–touch synaesthesia. Brain, 128(7), 1571–1583.

Borghi, A., Binkofski, F., Castelfranchi, C., Cimatti, F., Scorolli, C., & Tummolini, L. (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 263–292.

Boulpaep, E., Boron, W., Caplan, M., Cantley, L., Igarashi, P., Aronson, P., & Moczydlowski, E. (2009). Medical physiology a cellular and molecular approach. Signal Transduct, 48, 27.

Brooks, R. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47 (1-3), 139–159.

Brown, S., Cromby, J., Harpe, D., Johnson, K., & Reavey, P. (2011). Researching “experience”: Embodiment, methodology, process. Theory & Psychology, 21(4), 493–515.

Bunge, M. (1977). Emergence and the mind. Neuroscience, 2(4), 501–509.

Bunge, M. (1978). The mind-body problem in the light of contemporary biology (with Rodolfo Llinás). In 16th world congress of philosophy: Section papers (pp. 131–133).

Bunge, M. (1980). The mind–body problem: A psychobiological approach. Pergamon: Oxford.

Bunge, M. (1999). Social science under debate: A philosophical perspective. University of Toronto Press.

Cardona, J., Kargieman, L., Sinay, V., Gershanik, O., Gelormini, C., Amoruso, L., … others (2014). How embodied is action language? Neurological evidence from motor diseases. Cognition, 131(2), 311–322.

Casasanto, D. (2008). Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? Memory & Cognition, 36(6), 1047–1056.

Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right-and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351.

Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579–593.

Chatterjee, A. (2010). Disembodying cognition. Language and Cognition, 2(1), 79–116.

Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. US: MIT Press.

Chemero, A., & Silberstein, M. (2008). After the philosophy of mind: Replacing scholasticism with science. Philosophy of Science, 75(1), 1–27.

Churchland, P. (1989). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. MIT Press.

Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body and mind together again. MIT Press.

Clark, A. (1998). Embodiment and the philosophy of mind. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 43, 35–51.

Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.

Dahl, C., Rasch, M., Tomonaga, M., & Adachi, I. (2013). The face inversion effect in non-human primates revisited-an investigation in chimpanzees (pan troglodytes). Scientific Reports, 3, 2504.

Dennett, D. (1991). The future of folk psychology: Intentionality and cognitive science. In (pp. 135–148). Eskine, K., Kacinik, N., & Prinz, J. (2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22(3), 295–299.

Evans, K. K., & Treisman, A. (2009). Natural crossmodal mappings between visual and auditory features. Journal of Vision, 10(1), 6–6.

Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. Harvard University Press.

Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. MIT Press.

Fodor, J., & Pylyshyn, Z. (1981). How direct is visual perception?: Some reflections on Gibson’s ecological approach (Vision and Mind. Cambridge ed.; A. Noë, Ed.). MA: MIT Press.

Freund, P., Friston, K., Thompson, A., Stephan, K., Ashburner, J., Bach, D., … others (2016). Embodied neurology: an integrative framework for neurological disorders. Brain, 139(6), 1855–1861.

Frith, C., & Dolan, R. (1996). The role of the prefrontal cortex in higher cognitive functions. Cognitive Brain Research, 5(1-2), 175–181.

Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2006). Multisensory synesthetic interactions in the speeded classification of visual size. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(7), 1191–1203.

Gallagher, S. (2005). How the body shapes the mind. Clarendon Press.

Gallese, V. (2003). The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: the quest for a common mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 517–528.

Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(2), 593–609.

Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 455–479.

Gentsch, A., Weber, A., Synofzik, M., Vosgerau, G., & Schütz-Bosbach, S. (2016). Towards a common framework of grounded action cognition: Relating motor control, perception and cognition. Cognition, 146, 81–89.

Gibbs, R. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Glenberg, A. (2015). Few believe the world is flat: How embodiment is changing the scientific understanding of cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 69(2), 165–171.

Goldinger, S., Papesh, M., Barnhart, A., Hansen, W., & Hout, M. (2016). The poverty of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 959–978.

Goldman, A. (2012). A moderate approach to embodied cognitive science. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(1), 71–88.

Gover, M. (1996). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (book). Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 295–299.

Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1-3), 335–346.

Hume, D. (1904). An enquiry concerning human understanding (T. K. Paul, Ed.). Open Court Publishing.

James, W. (1894). Discussion: The physical basis of emotion. Psychological Review, 1(5), 516.

Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958. doi:doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 195–208.

Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. Basic Books.

Longo, M., Schüür, F., Kammers, M., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition, 107 (3), 978–998.

Mahon, B. (2015). The burden of embodied cognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 69(2), 172.

Mahon, B., & Caramazza, A. (2005). The orchestration of the sensory-motor systems: Clues from neuropsychology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3-4), 480–494.

Mahon, B., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1-3), 59–70.

Makovac, E., & Gerbino, W. (2010). Sound-shape con gruency affects the multisensory response enhancement. Visual Cognition, 18, 133–137.

Margolies, S., & Crawford, L. (2008). Event valence and spatial metaphors of time. Cognition and Emotion, 22(7), 1401–1414.

Marks, L. E. (2004). Handbook of Multisensory Processes. In C. S. G. A. Calvert & B. E. Stein (Eds.), (pp. 85–105). Cambrigde: MIT Press.

Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Khatin-Zadeh, O., Yazdani-Fazlabadi, B., Tirado, C., & Sagi, E. (2017). Embodied concept mapping: blending structuremapping and embodiment theories. Pragmatics & Cognition, 24(2), 164–185.

Merritt, D., Casasanto, D., & Brannon, E. M. (2010). Do monkeys think in metaphors? Representations of space and time in monkeys and humans. Cognition, 117 (2), 191–202.

Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788–804.

Montoro, P., Contreras, M., Elosúa, M., & Marmolejo-Ramos, F. (2015). Cross-modal metaphorical mapping of spoken emotion words onto vertical space. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1205. doi:103389/fpsyg.2015.01205

Parise, C., & Spence, C. (2008). Synesthetic congruency modulates the temporal ventriloquism effect. Neuroscience Letters, 442(3), 257–261.

Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.

Price, C., & Friston, K. (2002). Degeneracy and cognitive anatomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(10), 416–421.

Salgado-Montejo, A., Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Alvarado, J. A., Arboleda, J. C., Suarez, D. R., & Spence, C. (2016). Drawing sounds: representing tones and chords spatially. Experimental Brain Research, 234(12), 3509–3522.

Shapiro, L. (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition. Routledge.

Sigala, N., Gabbiani, F., & Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Visual categorization and object representation in monkeys and humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(2), 187–198.

Skinner, B. F. (1977). Why i am not a cognitive psychologist. Behaviorism, 5(2), 1–10.

Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(4), 971–995.

Varela, F. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 330–349.

Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48(4), 422–488.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.

The work that is sent to this journal must be original, not published or sent to be published elsewhere; and if it is accepted for publication, authors will agree to transfer copyright to International Journal of Psychological Research. 

To give up copyright, the authors allow that, International Journal of Psychological Research, distribute the work more broadly, check for the reuse by others and take care of the necessary procedures for the registration and administration of copyright; at the same time, our editorial board represents the interests of the author and allows authors to re-use his work in various forms. In response to the above, authors transfer copyright to the journal, International Journal of Psychological Research. This transfer does not imply other rights which are not those of authorship (for example those that concern about patents). Likewise, preserves the authors rights to use the work integral or partially in lectures, books and courses, as well as make copies for educational purposes. Finally, the authors may use freely the tables and figures in its future work, wherever make explicit reference to the previous publication in International Journal of Psychological Research. The assignment of copyright includes both virtual rights and forms of the article to allow the editorial to disseminate the work in the manner which it deems appropriate. 

The editorial board reserves the right of amendments deemed necessary in the application of the rules of publication.