Palmiero Massimiliano, Piccardi Laura, Giancola Marco, Nori Raffaella, D'Amico Simonetta, Olivetti Belardinelli Marta
Cognitive and Motor Rehabilitation and Neuroimaging Unit, I.R.C.C.S. Fondazione Santa Lucia, Via Ardeatina 306, 00179, Rome, Italy.
Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Cogn Process. 2019 Aug;20(3):277-289. doi: 10.1007/s10339-019-00908-z. Epub 2019 Feb 23.
The issue of the format of mental imagery is still an open debate. The classical analogue (depictive)-propositional (descriptive) debate has not provided definitive conclusions. Over the years, the debate has shifted within the frame of the embodied cognition approach, which focuses on the interdependence of perception, cognition and action. Although the simulation approach still retains the concept of representation, the more radical line of the embodied cognition approach emphasizes the importance of action and clearly disregards the concept of representation. In particular, the enactive approach focuses on motor procedures that allow the body to interact with the environment, whereas the sensorimotor approach focuses on the possession and exercise of sensorimotor knowledge about how the sensory input changes as a function of movement. In this review, the embodied approaches are presented and critically discussed. Then, in an attempt to show that the format of mental imagery varies according to the ability and the strategy used to represent information, the role of individual differences in imagery ability (e.g., vividness and expertise) and imagery strategy (e.g., object vs. spatial imagers) is reviewed. Since vividness is mainly associated with perceptual information, reflecting the activation level of specific imagery systems, whereas the preferred strategy used is mainly associated with perceptual (e.g., object imagery) or amodal and motor information (e.g., spatial imagery), the format of mental imagery appears to be based on dynamic embodied representations, depending on imagery abilities and imagery strategies.
心理意象的形式问题仍然是一个有待探讨的话题。传统的模拟(描绘性)-命题(描述性)之争尚未得出明确结论。多年来,这场争论在具身认知方法的框架内发生了转变,该方法侧重于感知、认知和行动的相互依存关系。尽管模拟方法仍然保留了表征的概念,但具身认知方法中更为激进的观点强调行动的重要性,并且明显忽视了表征的概念。具体而言,生成方法侧重于使身体与环境相互作用的运动程序,而感觉运动方法则侧重于拥有和运用关于感觉输入如何随运动而变化的感觉运动知识。在这篇综述中,我们将介绍并批判性地讨论具身方法。然后,为了表明心理意象的形式会根据表征信息所使用的能力和策略而有所不同,我们将综述个体在意象能力(如生动性和专业知识)和意象策略(如图像与空间意象者)方面差异的作用。由于生动性主要与感知信息相关,反映了特定意象系统的激活水平,而所使用的偏好策略主要与感知(如图像意象)或非模态和运动信息(如空间意象)相关,心理意象的形式似乎基于动态的具身表征,这取决于意象能力和意象策略。