Understanding the constituent elements, process organization, and neural networks involved in abstraction and predictive thinking requires confronting an extensive range of cognitive processes. In proposing their model, the authors have additionally integrated the different perspectives based on the principle of parsimony, essential to reductionism in research. However, some aspects, though deserving of more contextual prominence, have been relegated to the background.
Although we do not intend to discuss the role of language in complex abstract thought, it is the only way to access complex abstract; therefore, similar to other aspects of cognition, language is intertwined with sensorimotor and social information. Thus, question on the “hierarchy of abstractness” is extended to single words and their meaning but the concept of “abstract elements” necessitates a definition, and researchers occasionally have varied hierarchical vision. Gilead and colleagues hypothesized a discontinuity at some point between concrete and intangible in their abstraction hierarchy. Studies on explicit word categorization suggest the abstract as more nuanced than a simple difference between perceptible or intangible. Troche et al. (Reference Troche, Crutch and Reilly2017) hypothesized a continuous three-dimensional space (endogenous, exogenous, and magnitude) wherein the elements are placed according to their level of concreteness. A similar semantic classification study refuted the dichotomic view of concreteness–abstractness (Borghi et al. Reference Borghi, Barca, Binkofski, Castelfranchi, Pezzulo and Tummolini2019b). Both abstract and concrete concepts involve the sensorimotor system and involve many dimensions, including social, linguistic, and inner experience.
Although an explicit dichotomous or mono-dimensional classification of concreteness–abstractness appears impossible, a diffused and inextricable interconnection seems viable even at the level of cortical representation of semantic contents. Another fascinating study used fMRI to draw a cortical semantic representation map (Huth et al. Reference Huth, De Heer, Griffiths, Theunissen and Gallant2016). The findings revealed a similar organization between subjects, consistent with that based on semantic domains (i.e., abstract, social, and perception-related words), merging one into the other intricately. This organization complicates the visualization of clear boundaries between abstract concepts and episodic or sensorimotor memories, or other concurrent perceptive activity.
On a wider perspective, Gilead and colleagues offered another point on evolutionary interpretation. It cannot be denied that the products of the human mind extend beyond sensory stimuli-mediated concreteness and environmental perception. Simultaneously, it is widely accepted that the senses and complex behavior (e.g., environmental adaptation and mating strategies) are strictly interdependent. In our opinion, this interaction has profoundly directed evolutionary processes, including that in humans, making it difficult to hypothesize the mental processes, abstract contents, and neural substrates underlying them, and which are independent of perception.
Although the authors admit the multi-modal nature of perceptual experiences, differences in perceptual, interoceptive and motor pathways require additional emphasis, mainly in predictive contexts. As a result, the proposed model must account for abstract concepts in terms of two aspects that are crucial for cognitive, affective, and social processes. First, strictly body-generated information, such as proprioception and interoception, is not considered in the target article even though abstract words can be directly experienced through the homeostatic condition of the body (e.g., hungry and fear). Moreover, interoception and other bodily signals ground emotional concepts and should be thought as part of the system of abstract concepts (Connell et al. Reference Connell, Lynott and Banks2018). Second, one must consider the presence of an organization more complex and rooted than all perception-based information of telereceptive senses. The multimodality of perceptual experiences appears more effective with the inclusion of weak and sparse stimuli, despite their spatiotemporal co-occurrence (Ghazanfar & Lemus Reference Ghazanfar and Lemus2010). Reciprocal interactions between sensory domains prevent multisensory collaboration from being democratic or steady.
Studies on cross-modal perception indicate the circumstantial predominance of specific perception over multisensory elaboration. Action perception in routine life, for example, typically implies the merging of discrete information from the visual, auditory, or olfactory senses to optimally guide interpretation and behavior (Chen & Spence Reference Chen and Spence2010). Although multiple senses mediate our experience with the world, sight usually provides the most reliable information for human predictive cognition. Vision is also the medium for studying the social and emotional nature of experiences (e.g., pain and anger) and for shaping, implementing, and adjusting action plans (Aglioti & Pazzaglia Reference Aglioti and Pazzaglia2011). The predominance of vision over the other senses questions whether multisensory integration is necessarily mediated by visual transformations.
However, auditory and olfactory stimuli associated with abstract symbols, filter through multisensory redundant cues, occasionally dominate one's knowledge. Odors can not only influence emotional states and social interactions, modulating words and facial recognition, but also become associated with abstract symbols, influencing subsequent elaboration processes (Seo et al. Reference Seo, Arshamian, Schemmer, Scheer, Sander, Ritter and Hummel2010), such as anticipatory action planning (Aglioti & Pazzaglia Reference Aglioti and Pazzaglia2010). Therefore, the sensory consequences of an odor are integrated with the ongoing high-order cognitive activity. From a neural view point, the olfactory networks still remain largely unexplored despite strong evidence of their involvement in the activation of a network of brain areas typically responsible for high-order processes (Zhou et al. Reference Zhou, Lane, Cooper, Kahnt and Zelano2019). Similarly, the auditory system presents characteristics that predominate other senses (Aglioti & Pazzaglia Reference Aglioti and Pazzaglia2010), with sounds helping to establish a state of alertness, predict upcoming events, and trigger anticipatory representations (Aglioti & Pazzaglia Reference Aglioti and Pazzaglia2011). The brain areas identified in these studies include those involved in sensory and motor processing, presenting compelling evidence in favor of modality-specific abstract information. Furthermore, the elaboration of sensory information is a continuous and implicit process that may never reach a conscious level of perception but influence ongoing high-order cognitive activity (Walla Reference Walla2008). Although modality-specific sensory information is important in forming the perceptual features of concrete representation, sensory afferences deeply influence the higher cognitive processes that characterize real-world experiences.
Thus, it is suggested that unimodal input for prediction provides more rapid and less variable acquisition, more precise dynamic representations, and more specific information for anticipatory coding. From an evolutionary view point, knowledge of forthcoming events is more significant than past events. Analyzing the contribution of these different sensory channels and bodily information to the perspective coding of abstract and concrete concepts, their influence, or role in defining the content and form of mental travel still remains a fundamental topic for future research.
You have
Access
Understanding the constituent elements, process organization, and neural networks involved in abstraction and predictive thinking requires confronting an extensive range of cognitive processes. In proposing their model, the authors have additionally integrated the different perspectives based on the principle of parsimony, essential to reductionism in research. However, some aspects, though deserving of more contextual prominence, have been relegated to the background.
Although we do not intend to discuss the role of language in complex abstract thought, it is the only way to access complex abstract; therefore, similar to other aspects of cognition, language is intertwined with sensorimotor and social information. Thus, question on the “hierarchy of abstractness” is extended to single words and their meaning but the concept of “abstract elements” necessitates a definition, and researchers occasionally have varied hierarchical vision. Gilead and colleagues hypothesized a discontinuity at some point between concrete and intangible in their abstraction hierarchy. Studies on explicit word categorization suggest the abstract as more nuanced than a simple difference between perceptible or intangible. Troche et al. (Reference Troche, Crutch and Reilly2017) hypothesized a continuous three-dimensional space (endogenous, exogenous, and magnitude) wherein the elements are placed according to their level of concreteness. A similar semantic classification study refuted the dichotomic view of concreteness–abstractness (Borghi et al. Reference Borghi, Barca, Binkofski, Castelfranchi, Pezzulo and Tummolini2019b). Both abstract and concrete concepts involve the sensorimotor system and involve many dimensions, including social, linguistic, and inner experience.
Although an explicit dichotomous or mono-dimensional classification of concreteness–abstractness appears impossible, a diffused and inextricable interconnection seems viable even at the level of cortical representation of semantic contents. Another fascinating study used fMRI to draw a cortical semantic representation map (Huth et al. Reference Huth, De Heer, Griffiths, Theunissen and Gallant2016). The findings revealed a similar organization between subjects, consistent with that based on semantic domains (i.e., abstract, social, and perception-related words), merging one into the other intricately. This organization complicates the visualization of clear boundaries between abstract concepts and episodic or sensorimotor memories, or other concurrent perceptive activity.
On a wider perspective, Gilead and colleagues offered another point on evolutionary interpretation. It cannot be denied that the products of the human mind extend beyond sensory stimuli-mediated concreteness and environmental perception. Simultaneously, it is widely accepted that the senses and complex behavior (e.g., environmental adaptation and mating strategies) are strictly interdependent. In our opinion, this interaction has profoundly directed evolutionary processes, including that in humans, making it difficult to hypothesize the mental processes, abstract contents, and neural substrates underlying them, and which are independent of perception.
Although the authors admit the multi-modal nature of perceptual experiences, differences in perceptual, interoceptive and motor pathways require additional emphasis, mainly in predictive contexts. As a result, the proposed model must account for abstract concepts in terms of two aspects that are crucial for cognitive, affective, and social processes. First, strictly body-generated information, such as proprioception and interoception, is not considered in the target article even though abstract words can be directly experienced through the homeostatic condition of the body (e.g., hungry and fear). Moreover, interoception and other bodily signals ground emotional concepts and should be thought as part of the system of abstract concepts (Connell et al. Reference Connell, Lynott and Banks2018). Second, one must consider the presence of an organization more complex and rooted than all perception-based information of telereceptive senses. The multimodality of perceptual experiences appears more effective with the inclusion of weak and sparse stimuli, despite their spatiotemporal co-occurrence (Ghazanfar & Lemus Reference Ghazanfar and Lemus2010). Reciprocal interactions between sensory domains prevent multisensory collaboration from being democratic or steady.
Studies on cross-modal perception indicate the circumstantial predominance of specific perception over multisensory elaboration. Action perception in routine life, for example, typically implies the merging of discrete information from the visual, auditory, or olfactory senses to optimally guide interpretation and behavior (Chen & Spence Reference Chen and Spence2010). Although multiple senses mediate our experience with the world, sight usually provides the most reliable information for human predictive cognition. Vision is also the medium for studying the social and emotional nature of experiences (e.g., pain and anger) and for shaping, implementing, and adjusting action plans (Aglioti & Pazzaglia Reference Aglioti and Pazzaglia2011). The predominance of vision over the other senses questions whether multisensory integration is necessarily mediated by visual transformations.
However, auditory and olfactory stimuli associated with abstract symbols, filter through multisensory redundant cues, occasionally dominate one's knowledge. Odors can not only influence emotional states and social interactions, modulating words and facial recognition, but also become associated with abstract symbols, influencing subsequent elaboration processes (Seo et al. Reference Seo, Arshamian, Schemmer, Scheer, Sander, Ritter and Hummel2010), such as anticipatory action planning (Aglioti & Pazzaglia Reference Aglioti and Pazzaglia2010). Therefore, the sensory consequences of an odor are integrated with the ongoing high-order cognitive activity. From a neural view point, the olfactory networks still remain largely unexplored despite strong evidence of their involvement in the activation of a network of brain areas typically responsible for high-order processes (Zhou et al. Reference Zhou, Lane, Cooper, Kahnt and Zelano2019). Similarly, the auditory system presents characteristics that predominate other senses (Aglioti & Pazzaglia Reference Aglioti and Pazzaglia2010), with sounds helping to establish a state of alertness, predict upcoming events, and trigger anticipatory representations (Aglioti & Pazzaglia Reference Aglioti and Pazzaglia2011). The brain areas identified in these studies include those involved in sensory and motor processing, presenting compelling evidence in favor of modality-specific abstract information. Furthermore, the elaboration of sensory information is a continuous and implicit process that may never reach a conscious level of perception but influence ongoing high-order cognitive activity (Walla Reference Walla2008). Although modality-specific sensory information is important in forming the perceptual features of concrete representation, sensory afferences deeply influence the higher cognitive processes that characterize real-world experiences.
Thus, it is suggested that unimodal input for prediction provides more rapid and less variable acquisition, more precise dynamic representations, and more specific information for anticipatory coding. From an evolutionary view point, knowledge of forthcoming events is more significant than past events. Analyzing the contribution of these different sensory channels and bodily information to the perspective coding of abstract and concrete concepts, their influence, or role in defining the content and form of mental travel still remains a fundamental topic for future research.