Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-8cpv7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-11T16:25:53.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Giving body to the multitrait framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2025

Bartosz Michał Radomski Open the ORCID record for Bartosz Michał Radomski [Opens in a new window] ,
Jelle Bruineberg Open the ORCID record for Jelle Bruineberg [Opens in a new window] ,
Alexander Hölken ,
Henry D. Potter Open the ORCID record for Henry D. Potter [Opens in a new window] ,
Caroline Stankozi  and
Fred Keijzer
Bartosz Michał Radomski*
Affiliation:
Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany bartosz.radomski@rub.de alexander.hoelken@rub.de caroline.stankozi@rub.de
Jelle Bruineberg
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark bruineberg@hum.ku.dk
Alexander Hölken
Affiliation:
Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany bartosz.radomski@rub.de alexander.hoelken@rub.de caroline.stankozi@rub.de
Henry D. Potter
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland hpotter@tcd.ie
Caroline Stankozi
Affiliation:
Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany bartosz.radomski@rub.de alexander.hoelken@rub.de caroline.stankozi@rub.de
Fred Keijzer
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands f.a.keijzer@rug.nl
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Given its assumption that cognition is embodied, the multitrait framework could benefit from engaging with recent work in embodied cognitive science. Here, we introduce three lines of contemporary research—from ecological psychology, basal cognition, and embodied cognitive neuroscience—which help contextualize the article’s “trait-linkage” findings and further support the authors’ arguments for evolutionary continuity between simple and complex cognitive traits.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e94
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, M. L. (2010). Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(4), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000853 Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, M. L. (2014). After phrenology: Neural reuse and the interactive brain. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10111.001.0001 Google Scholar
Arbib, M., & Bota, M. (2003). Language evolution: Neural homologies and neuroinformatics. Neural Networks, 16(9), 1237–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2003.08.002 Google ScholarPubMed
Arendt, D. (2021). Elementary nervous systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1821), 20200347. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0347 Google ScholarPubMed
Arnellos, A., & Keijzer, F. (2019). Bodily complexity: integrated multicellular organizations for contraction-based motility. Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 1268. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.01268 Google ScholarPubMed
Bruineberg, J. P., & Van Den Herik, J. C. (2021). Embodying mental affordances. Inquiry, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2021.1987316 Google Scholar
Cisek, P., & Kalaska, J. F. (2010). Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33(1), 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.051508.135409 Google ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01361-3 Google Scholar
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the human brain. Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Engel, A. K., Maye, A., Kurthen, M., & König, P. (2013). Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.006 Google ScholarPubMed
Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press. (Originally work published 1979)Google Scholar
Jékely, G. (2021). The chemical brain hypothesis for the origin of nervous systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1821), 20190761. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0761 Google ScholarPubMed
Jékely, G., Keijzer, F., & Godfrey-Smith, P. (2015). An option space for early neural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1684), 20150181. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0181 Google ScholarPubMed
Leroux, M., & Townsend, S. W. (2020). Call combinations in great apes and the evolution of syntax. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 7(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.07.02.07.2020 Google Scholar
Lyon, P. (2006). The biogenic approach to cognition. Cognitive Processing, 7(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-005-0016-8 Google ScholarPubMed
Lyon, P., Keijzer, F., Arendt, D., & Levin, M. (2021). Reframing cognition: Getting down to biological basics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1820), 20190750. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0750 Google ScholarPubMed
Moroz, L. L., Romanova, D. Y., & Kohn, A. B. (2021). Neural versus alternative integrative systems: Molecular insights into origins of neurotransmitters. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1821), 20190762. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0762 Google ScholarPubMed
Penner-Wilger, M., & Anderson, M. L. (2013). The relation between finger gnosis and mathematical ability: Why redeployment of neural circuits best explains the finding. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00877 Google ScholarPubMed
Pessoa, L. (2022). The entangled brain: How perception, cognition, and emotion are woven together. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ros-Rocher, N., & Brunet, T. (2023). What is it like to be a choanoflagellate? Sensation, processing and behavior in the closest unicellular relatives of animals. Animal Cognition, 26(6), 1767–1782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-023-01776-z Google ScholarPubMed
Wan, K. Y., & Jékely, G. (2021). Origins of eukaryotic excitability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1820), 20190758. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0758 Google ScholarPubMed
Warren, W. H., & Fajen, B. R. (2004). From optic flow to laws of control. In Vaina, L. M., Beardsley, S. A. , & Rushton, S. K. (Eds.), Optic Flow and Beyond (pp. 307–337). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2092-6_14 Google Scholar