↓ Skip to main content

An Embodied Approach to Understanding: Making Sense of the World Through Simulated Bodily Activity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An Embodied Approach to Understanding: Making Sense of the World Through Simulated Bodily Activity
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01914
Pubmed ID
Authors

Firat Soylu

Abstract

Even though understanding is a very widely used concept, both colloquially and in scholarly work, its definition is nebulous and it is not well-studied as a psychological construct, compared to other psychological constructs like learning and memory. Studying understanding based on third-person (e.g., behavioral, neuroimaging) data alone presents unique challenges. Understanding refers to a first-person experience of making sense of an event or a conceptual domain, and therefore requires incorporation of multiple levels of study, at the first-person (phenomenological), behavioral, and neural levels. Previously, psychological understanding was defined as a form of conscious knowing. Alternatively, biofunctional approach extends to unconscious, implicit, automatic, and intuitive aspects of cognition. Here, to bridge these two approaches an embodied and evolutionary perspective is provided to situate biofunctional understanding in theories of embodiment, and to discuss how simulation theories of cognition, which regard simulation of sensorimotor and affective states as a central tenet of cognition, can bridge the gap between biofunctional and psychological understanding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Neuroscience 5 8%
Linguistics 3 5%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 14 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,217,139
of 24,857,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,813
of 33,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,709
of 430,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#329
of 417 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,857,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,901 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 417 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.