David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Human Studies 33 (2):221-227 (2010)
Classifying spatial frames of references have placed egocentric/body-based representations on muddy grounds. The traditional taxonomy places it under the deictic distinction while the Levinson’s terminology does not provide a special status for it but classifies it along with the relative frame of reference. Research from other areas of cognition has come up with other implied classifications that are motivated by the special role played by these egocentric representation(s). Tangled among such issues is the fuzzy distinction between egocentric and body based representations. The current paper takes up exactly this issue and proposes to sub classify egocentric representations into two different subtypes namely the first- and the second-order representations. The proposed distinction serves an essential purpose for understanding important cognitive processes like spatial transformation, mental perspective taking, and so on
|Keywords||Spatial cognition Egocentric representation Body Viewpoints|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
George Lakoff & Mark Johnson (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh the Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought.
Christian Keysers & David I. Perrett (2004). Demystifying Social Cognition: A Hebbian Perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (11):501-507.
Barbara Tversky & Bridgette Martin Hard (2009). Embodied and Disembodied Cognition: Spatial Perspective-Taking. Cognition 110 (1):124-129.
Ranxiao Frances Wang & Elizabeth S. Spelke (2000). Updating Egocentric Representations in Human Navigation. Cognition 77 (3):215-250.
Laura A. Carlson-Radvansky & David E. Irwin (1993). Frames of Reference in Vision and Language: Where is Above? Cognition 46 (3):223-244.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Neha Khetrapal (2010). Achieving Common Grounds in Communication Via Interfaces: A Role of Spatial Frames for Reference. [REVIEW] Poiesis and Praxis 7 (3):189-195.
Adrian John Tetteh Alsmith & Frédérique Vignemont (2012). Embodying the Mind and Representing the Body. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3 (1):1-13.
Adrian J. T. Smith (2009). Acting on (Bodily) Experience. Psyche 15 (1):82 - 99.
Joel Smith (2014). Egocentric Space. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 22 (3):409-433.
Gottfried Vosgerau (2007). Conceptuality in Spatial Representations. Philosophical Psychology 20 (3):349 – 365.
Douglas M. Snyder (1994). On the Arbitrary Choice Regarding Which Inertial Reference Frame is "Stationary" and Which is "Moving" in the Special Theory of Relativity. Philosophical Explorations.
Glenn Carruthers (2008). Types of Body Representation and the Sense of Embodiment. Consciousness and Cognition 17 (1302):1316.
Cameron Hessell (2013). On the Unintelligibility of Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Philosophical Investigations 36 (2):113-154.
Geoffrey Joseph (1979). Geometry and Special Relativity. Philosophy of Science 46 (3):425-438.
Robin Le Poidevin (1999). Egocentric and Objective Time. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99:19 - 36.
Robert Briscoe (2009). Egocentric Spatial Representation in Action and Perception. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (2):423-460.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads21 ( #185,687 of 1,911,506 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,144 of 1,911,506 )
How can I increase my downloads?