2016
DOI: 10.1007/s13164-016-0311-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intentions and Motor Representations: the Interface Challenge

Abstract: A full account of purposive action must appeal not only to propositional attitude states like beliefs, desires, and intentions, but also to motor representations, i.e., non-propositional states that are thought to represent, among other things, action outcomes as well as detailed kinematic features of bodily movements. This raises the puzzle of how it is that these two distinct types of state successfully coordinate. We examine this so-called "Interface Problem". First, we clarify and expand on the nature and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
79
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 97 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
1
79
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…6 It should be noted that it is unclear which extant views in the literature can actually be characterized as determination views. For example, while Burnston (2017) treats the view that Mylopoulos and Pacherie (2017) defend as a determination view, they maintain that proximal intentions activate corresponding motor schemas, which themselves contain open parameters that must be specified with the help of attention and context, which would seem to favor treating theirs as a biasing view instead. 7 As Fridland (2017) points out, the interface problem is also salient in recent hybrid accounts of skilled action that attempt to explain the intelligence of skill not merely by appeal to propositional knowledge or trained up dispositions, but rather by appeal to continuous interplay between control states and processes at both cognitive and motoric levels, with neither level being privileged as the locus of intelligence (e.g., Fridland, 2014Fridland, , 2017Levy, 2017;Christensen et al, 2016;Papineau, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…6 It should be noted that it is unclear which extant views in the literature can actually be characterized as determination views. For example, while Burnston (2017) treats the view that Mylopoulos and Pacherie (2017) defend as a determination view, they maintain that proximal intentions activate corresponding motor schemas, which themselves contain open parameters that must be specified with the help of attention and context, which would seem to favor treating theirs as a biasing view instead. 7 As Fridland (2017) points out, the interface problem is also salient in recent hybrid accounts of skilled action that attempt to explain the intelligence of skill not merely by appeal to propositional knowledge or trained up dispositions, but rather by appeal to continuous interplay between control states and processes at both cognitive and motoric levels, with neither level being privileged as the locus of intelligence (e.g., Fridland, 2014Fridland, , 2017Levy, 2017;Christensen et al, 2016;Papineau, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here we review three proposed solutions, including that of Butterfill and Sinigaglia (2014): (a) the deferral solution (Butterfill & Sinigaglia, 2014), (b) the motor schema solution (Mylopoulos & Pacherie, 2017), and (c) the dual-content solution (Shepherd, 2017a).…”
Section: Interfacingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Motor representations map the kinematic and proprioceptive features of bodily movements: they develop when actions are actually executed (Jeannerod, ; Mylopoulos & Pacherie, ) and are somatotopically anchored to the cerebral cortex, in primary motor, premotor and parietal areas. The brain regions involved are prone to the anatomical and physiological challenges associated with aging (Seidler et al, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The executed (Jeannerod, 2001;Mylopoulos & Pacherie, 2017) and are somatotopically anchored to the cerebral cortex, in primary motor, premotor and parietal areas. The brain regions involved are prone to the anatomical and physiological challenges associated with aging (Seidler et al, 2010).…”
Section: Between-group Difference In Foot Movement Executionmentioning
confidence: 99%