From the article: Abstract Over the last decades, philosophers and cognitive scientists have argued that the brain constitutes only one of several contributing factors to cognition, the other factors being the body and the world. This position we refer to as Embodied Embedded Cognition (EEC). The main purpose of this paper is to consider what EEC implies for the task interpretation of the control system. We argue that the traditional view of the control system as involved in planning and decision making based on beliefs about the world runs into the problem of computational intractability. EEC views the control system as relying heavily on the naturally evolved fit between organism and environment. A ‘lazy’ control structure could be ‘ignorantly successful’ in a ‘user friendly’ world, by facilitating the transitory creation of a flexible and integrated set of behavioral layers that are constitutive of ongoing behavior. We close by discussing the types of questions this could imply for empirical research in cognitive neuroscience and robotics.
LINK
The growth of neuroscience studies within tourism has been relatively slow, with limited well-executed studies and little interdisciplinarity. The aim of this review is to stimulate the use of neuroscience within tourism research. It first discusses the synergies to be gained by combining neuroscience with social science, exploring the usefulness and suitability of using neuroscience within tourism. An evaluation of review articles that have critiqued individual applications of neuroscience in tourism is presented, followed by a comprehensive overview of neuroscience methods. We discuss the theoretical relevance of neuroscience and its potential themes for a tourism neuroscience research agenda. This discussion is based on a selective review of wider neuroscience of relevance to tourism, including affective neuroscience, neuromarketing, neuroeconomics and neuromanagement.
LINK
Mounting evidence supports the use of face-to-face pain neuroscience education for the treatment of chronic pain patients. This study aimed at examining whether written education about pain neuroscience improves illness perceptions, catastrophizing, and health status in patients with fibromyalgia. A double-blind, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial with 6-month follow-up was conducted. Patients with FM (n = 114) that consented to participate were randomly allocated to receive either written pain neuroscience education or written relaxation training. Written pain neuroscience education comprised of a booklet with pain neuroscience education plus a telephone call to clarify any difficulties; the relaxation group received a booklet with relaxation education and a telephone call. The revised illness perception questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and fibromyalgia impact questionnaire were used as outcome measures. Both patients and assessors were blinded. Repeated-measures analyses with last observation carried forward principle were performed. Cohen's d effect sizes (ES) were calculated for all within-group changes and between-group differences. The results reveal that written pain neuroscience education does not change the impact of FM on daily life, catastrophizing, or perceived symptoms of patients with FM. Compared with written relaxation training, written pain neuroscience education improved beliefs in a chronic timeline of FM (P = 0.03; ES = 0.50), but it does not impact upon other domains of illness perceptions. Compared with written relaxation training, written pain neuroscience education slightly improved illness perceptions of patients with FM, but it did not impart clinically meaningful effects on pain, catastrophizing, or the impact of FM on daily life. Face-to-face sessions of pain neuroscience education are required to change inappropriate cognitions and perceived health in patients with FM.
LINK
