Embodiment has become a key concept in human life sciences in recent years. Although generally understood as the sum of bodily preconditions of cognition, emotion, and behavior, a closer look unveils that conceptualizations of embodiment vary strongly among research areas and theoretical schools: from embodied simulation to embodied cognition, from biological embedding of experience to interoception and the embodied mind. Differences also include types of knowledge production (e.g., cognitive processing models vs. motor developmental pathways vs. computational simulations of neural activity patterns), data modalities (e.g., self-reports vs. medical diagnoses vs. movement trajectories vs. molecular epigenetic profiles), and the involved levels of analysis (e.g., psychological function vs. gene expression). Different research areas and theoretical schools also account for different timescales across which embodiment processes can be analyzed (e.g., life-time effects vs. acute activation). Importantly, some of the most pressing topics with the greatest potential to advance embodiment research cut across research disciplines and are currently significantly hampered by the lack of a common theoretical framework that bridges the different conceptualizations of embodiment.

The current situation calls for an interdisciplinary conceptualization of embodiment. Here, we propose to adopt a developmental perspective as an integrative cross-disciplinary framework of embodiment research serving three main purposes: A developmental perspective on embodiment accounts for the different timescales that underlie the processes of incorporation and expression of an agent's embodied experiences in the interaction with the environment. It also relates different levels of embodiment to one another as they develop over the lifespan, based on their biological and functional interconnectedness. Finally, it clarifies disciplinary boundaries and finds connection points by identifying transmission hubs between the levels involved in a particular embodiment process which, then, creates links for collaboration between participating disciplines. This is especially important for research areas which try to overcome disciplinary limits but are still bound to the methods and committed to research standards within their respective field. Thus, on the basis of those three purposes, the proposed framework does not aim at providing a new definition of embodiment but shall be understood as a platform and analytical tool to enable and support integrative cross-disciplinary embodiment research by clarifying critical aspects that currently hamper the advance in the field.

In the following, we will, first, characterize two main types of approaches to embodiment in the life sciences, agency and environmental approaches (see section Integrating Environmental and Agency Approaches to Embodiment) and discuss how they conceptualize developmental processes underlying embodiment phenomena (see section Developmental Processes Grounding Embodiment: Implicit and Underexplored). Due to the variety of embodiment research in the life sciences, these two sections do not cover all existing embodiment concepts. We focus on those fields of embodiment research and concepts of embodiment for which adapting an integrative developmental perspective would be most productive from our perspective. Second, we will present examples for the potential and the challenges of developmental embodiment research (see section Developmental Embodiment Research: Cross-Disciplinary Examples). Finally, we discuss our framework of developmental embodiment research in more detail (see section Toward an Integrative Framework for Developmental Embodiment Research).

Developmental embodiment research, as we propose it in this paper, builds on two distinct lines of current embodiment research in the life sciences, which rarely connect conceptually, or in empirical studies (see Box 1 and Table 1 for an introduction into key concepts, targeted embodiment phenomena and related key references): First, “agency approaches” that emphasize how bodily embeddedness, anatomic preconditions, and physiological as well as neurophysiological foundations momentarily enable movements, actions, and psychological functions. Second, “environmental approaches,” which describe how the physical, social, and cultural environment is incorporated, and affects the physical structure of the body or brain and subsequently its function. Agency approaches mainly focus on the acute activation and involvement of the body, including basal body functions, signals, resources, and conditions etc. with emphasis on the active interaction with the environment. Research originating from an agency approach investigates how embodied experiences are mobilized and how they influence interactions with the environment. Environmental approaches, in contrast, focus on the long-term impact of environmental signals on bodily preconditions of mental functions and mental health outcomes. Research coming from an environmental approach investigates how environmental (pre)conditions and events are incorporated into the body to become embodied experiences. With our developmental framework, we propose to integrate agency and environmental approaches by understanding the body as a reservoir of experiences, providing a sort of storage and ‘memory' of experiences and capabilities necessary for action and mental functions which are activated and mobilized in the specific moment of interaction with the environment.

Other attempts to classify embodiment approaches often distinguish a third group of phenomenological approaches (Overton, 2008), or further differentiate along methods (experiential/objective), epistemological perspective (1st, 2nd, and 3rd third person perspective), and object of research (cognitive structure/practice) (Hornecker et al., 2017). We subsume phenomenological approaches under the group of agency approaches, as these are also primarily concerned with the momentary preconditions of consciousness, action, or perception, although from a first (or second) person perspective.

Integrating agency and environmental approaches to embodiment clearly broadens the notion of embodiment compared to its use in discipline-specific research areas (e.g., in embodied cognition research, see Wilson, 2002). In addition to different neural networks involved, e.g., in decision making, abstract word recognition, and movement execution, embodiment processes also encompass the physical constitution of the body (the anatomic structure of the limbs, homeostatic feedback processes, hormonal balance, basic sensory organization, and function, etc.), the neural networks involved in the regulation of these processes, and the molecular underpinnings of these regulation processes and network constitutions. This broader notion of embodiment further includes the focus on the anatomic structure of the body used in robotics (see Pfeifer and Bongard, 2006), the notion of an extended mind to our immediate environment and, most importantly, intersubjectivity emphasized in phenomenological accounts (see Fuchs, 2017), as well as the biological embedding of experiences across the lifespan (see Rutter, 2012). Still, not all body processes and conditions are of interest for developmental embodiment research, but only those which participate in the incorporation, shaping, and expression of embodiment experiences, in the context of e.g., a particular mental function or mental health outcome under study. Developmental embodiment research, as we propose it here, provides a matrix and platform through which different approaches of embodiment research can collaborate in the interdisciplinary study of a particular mental function or mental health outcome.

Although developmental theories are one of the historical pillars of embodiment research (Overton and Lerner, 2012), the question of how embodied functions develop often comes second in empirical studies. Some authors even question that a developmental perspective contributes at all to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of embodiment phenomena (e.g., Körner et al., 2015). In our view, both the agency approaches and the environmental approaches to embodiment imply developmental processes and would therefore profit from an explicit developmental perspective.

Agency approaches, on the one hand, implicitly acknowledge lifespan developmental changes in e.g., cognitive and motor functioning within their theoretical framework, but the specific impact on the embodiment phenomena under study is not empirically investigated. Referencing Gibson's ecological theory (Gibson, 1986//2014) or Piaget's stages of cognitive development (Inhelder and Piaget, 1958; Piaget, 1977), for example, agency approaches emphasize that the mind develops through an individual's interactions with the material world around it. Consequently, (inter-) individual differences in e.g., perception, imagination, language processing, or aesthetic judgement, as well as in neuronal activity measured in the sensorimotor cortex are understood as having evolved from these interactions. The activation of interoceptive and motor processing networks during these higher cognitive tasks then works as an indicator for the degree of bodily groundedness of a function.

Studies of developmental changes of embodiment phenomena based on the agency approach are rare, with exceptions often focusing on action perception and speech development during infancy and early childhood (Wellsby and Pexman, 2014; Gredebäck and Falck-Ytter, 2015; Fuchs, 2016b; Gottwald et al., 2016; Inkster et al., 2016; Gredebäck, 2018; Loucks and Sommerville, 2018). However, a number of studies examines changes of embodiment phenomena on a much shorter timescale due to e.g., training effects, therapeutic interventions, or short-term manipulation and impairment of motor capabilities (e.g., Koch et al., 2008; Marasco et al., 2011; Meugnot et al., 2014; Kuehn et al., 2018). It is likely that the mechanisms underlying short-term plastic changes of embodiment processes overlap with those underlying the longer-term developmental changes (Wenger et al., 2017). To fully bridge these timescales, however, agency approaches need to be integrated with environmental approaches.

Environmental approaches to embodiment, on the other hand, explicitly examine the developmental outcome related to the environmental impact under study. The goal is to trace the underlying biological processes, which lead to the observed associations in longitudinal epidemiological data (Hanson and Gluckman, 2008; Rutter, 2016; see also references in Table 1). This “archeology” (Hertzman, 2012, p. 17163) digs into different biological layers to ultimately identify differences at the level of DNA methylation or protein activity and gene expression. Although environmental approaches to embodiment assume that the incorporation or embedding of experience potentially takes place at multiple time-points, they often register only single events (preferably in early childhood) and their impact on a single biological level (e.g., the genetic and epigenetic level: Godfrey et al., 2007; Caspi et al., 2010). Only rarely, dynamic cross-level transformations of incorporated experiences are studied. This is mainly due to method- and data-related constraints. It implies, however, that we register only main tendencies and might miss most of the environmental impact and biologically embedding of dynamic experiences over the lifespan. In most cases, the “digging process” is limited to the final time-point and one biological condensate of interest.

In this way, environmental approaches often imply a direct causal link between an environmental event and a behavioral pattern, differences in psychological functions, or a mental health outcome. However, there is limited evidence for cases in which an input early in life directly, exclusively, and irreversibly affects the long-term outcome. More often we must assume that the biological foundation undergoes several dynamic developmental processes throughout an individual's life. Also, the mechanisms underlying acute activation of embodied experiences might differ from those grounding the long-term developmental pathways which channel the activation outcome. An experience may be embodied in a way that shapes a developmental pathway, which is then channeling but not determining the acute activity patterns, such as determining hormonal setpoints in the stress response system. This is critical, as any identified mediators and intermediate developmental stages of embodiment processes open up targets for interventions.

Table 2 summarizes developmental theories and their critical propositions for developmental embodiment research.

Practical examples of interdisciplinary embodiment research are still rare. Among these examples, only a few explicitly address embodiment processes from a developmental perspective. Here, we present a small selection of them, which shows the range of disciplines and research fields for which a developmental perspective of embodiment provides a useful platform. We selected these examples to illustrate the productivity but also some of the challenges of our proposed framework. Because of the many-faceted conceptualization of embodiment in the life sciences, the following examples can only be spotlights, highlighting different levels and areas of embodiment research, where, e.g., a developmental perspective is already employed, but needs refinement and more systematic standards across timepoints and experimental systems (see section Example 5: Epigenetic Mechanisms as Biomarkers for the Impact of Early Life Stress on Mental Health), or where such a perspective would help integrate data (see sections Example 1: Age-Related Cognitive Decline Impacts Motor Control and Example 4: The Developmental Impact of Limited Interoceptive Perception in Autism Spectrum Disorders) or provide additional criteria for competing theoretical explanations (see section Example 3: The Role of Sensorimotor Systems in Abstract Concept Representation and Example 7: Modeling Motor and Cognitive Development With Robots). Also, the examples described in the following demonstrate that the integration of timescales and levels needs to be case specific for each embodiment phenomenon, since, depending on the methods and data available, studying cross-level effects and indicators of long-term changes are quite different across disciplines and research topics.

As the previous examples show, developmental embodiment research focuses on cross-level effects underlying developmental processes, and a lifespan perspective to overcome restrictions of previously used approaches within their disciplines. An interdisciplinary framework acknowledging this research approach has the power to provide a matrix and platform for specific empirical studies or experiments on embodiment processes and phenomena, executed based on discipline specific standards and methods. Such a framework, as we propose in the following, maps out connections between levels of embodiment, with the goal to identify and address white spots across the map which, when filled, further complete the picture of a specific embodiment phenomenon. In this section, we will first introduce the main pillars of our framework and then outline important steps to bridge different timescales and levels of embodiment in cross-disciplinary embodiment research.

Environmental and agency approaches represent complementary perspectives. As Figure 1 illustrates, environmental and agency approaches to embodiment represent complementary perspectives in this endeavor: While environmental approaches focus on the process of incorporation of experiences over the lifespan (green arrow), agency approaches focus on the process of expression of embodied capacity within a specific behavior, emotional state or functional ability, simultaneously expressing and, through the action etc., shaping bodily preconditions (orange and yellow arrow). Both complementary, but analytically distinct approaches are interconnected by developmental processes along the individual's developmental timeline (gray-colored circular arrow).

Multi-level approach. In addition, Figure 1 illustrates the different physiological and functional levels potentially involved in the processes of incorporation, shaping and expression of embodied experiences. At the moment, these levels are often studied separately in different disciplines and by different theoretical schools, depending on their respective concept of embodiment. An explicit developmental perspective, relying on critical propositions of developmental theories, shifts the focus on the developmental processes interconnecting the mechanisms underlying a specific embodiment phenomenon at the different levels.

For example, from a developmental embodiment perspective, epigenetic modifications as well as the underlying genotype could be understood as developmental resources. These resources shape the way and degree to which environmental influences are incorporated during the life course and impact developmental outcomes, cumulating, for example, in disease vulnerability or resilience. These then represent some of the underlying bodily preconditions, for example, in a situation of acute mental distress, potentially shaping the symptomatic re-/action to a stressful situation. Pluess and Belsky (2010) discussed these observations as differential susceptibility to environmental signals (see Table 2) and environmental sensitivity (Pluess, 2015), Weaver et al. (2004) framed it as epigenetic programming. The impact of molecular changes at the epigenetic level on the adult phenotype, including disease symptoms and responsiveness to therapy, is a pressing research question. Specifically, at the genetic and epigenetic level (greenish level in Figure 1), environmental epigenetics (Weaver et al., 2004; Zhang and Meaney, 2009; Bollati and Baccarelli, 2010) and studies of gene-environment interactions (Caspi et al., 2003, 2010; Risch et al., 2009; Culverhouse et al., 2018) analyze molecular long-term (ontogenetic) effects of embodied experiences. In addition to one-time severe impacts, such as traumatic events or toxin exposure, also multidimensional and enduring environmental signals are studied, such as enriched environments (Zhang et al., 2018), bullying (Mulder et al., 2020), racial discrimination (Brody et al., 2016), socio-economic status (Needham et al., 2015; McDade et al., 2019), social deprivation (Non et al., 2016), and gender experiences (Cortes et al., 2019). For these fields, our framework would provide the currently missing cross-disciplinary matrix to integrate the different time-points and levels under study.

Accounting for change and stability. Further, from a developmental embodiment perspective, we conceptualize embodiment phenomena as resulting from a balance of developmental change and stability, which depend on the presence, strength, and timing of the environmental signal. Coming from Developmental Systems Theory, which emphasizes that the developmental system consists of dynamic feedback loops, Overton (1991) introduced the term procedures to characterize temporarily stabilized parts of the developmental systems present in embodiment phenomena (see also Table 2). Bones, grown structures and patterns of tissue, muscle constitutions and setpoints within metabolic or hormonal feedback loops, neural pathways and networks, epigenetic modifications but also automized behavioral patterns potentially function as established and stabilized procedures sculpting developmental pathways. Although procedures continuously need to be maintained within the developing system, we can classify them as embodied when the energetic costs to transform a procedure outweigh those to stabilize it, keeping in mind that the balance between energetic costs for stabilizing a procedure and transforming it might change during the course of the lifespan.

For example, the hormonal feedback loops underlying the stress response are established early in development. During this critical developmental period, set points of up- and downregulation of the stress response in presence of an acute stressor are established depending on the individual metabolic conditions and stress experiences during this period. These are then stabilized, however, the stabilization might be challenged by following life experiences, such as traumatic events, hormonal imbalances during adolescence, pregnancy, chronic stress, or aging, which all might lead to changes of the original set-point. The exact mechanisms of stabilization and change of these set-points are still only partially known, yet, it is assumed that they contribute to stress-related mental health impacts.

Another example would be establishment of neural pathways underlying automatized word recognition in reading. The ability to learn how to read depends on age-dependent neural and cognitive development with only some degree of inter-individual variability indicating dependence on other bodily embedded developmental processes. Once the basic ability to learn how to read is developed, instructions and practice are needed until the stage of automized word recognition is reached. The neural mechanisms, such as synaptic sensitization and neural pathway stabilization, underlying this automatization process are likely similar to (and may even rely on) processes of automatization of other motor and sensory activities, yet, again, they are still partially known. Their further elucidation would contribute to our knowledge on the mechanisms underlying various variants of dyslexia as well as possible impacts of strokes and subsequent rehabilitation therapy.

Developmental embodiment research would address these mechanisms with a multi-level cross-disciplinary approach and lifespan perspective. It would also address that the pathways of embodiment are then potentially two-fold, as can be traced in Figure 1, via a more passive incorporation (green arrow) or via the expression-shaping cycle (yellow and orange arrows) mediated by the individual's interaction with the environment (purple arrow). As both are depending on each other, with acute activation necessary for change and maintenance on the one side and incorporation setting some of the preconditions for the activation process on the other side, overcoming the current practical divide in embodiment research between environmental approaches and agency approaches is crucial to further advance our understanding of these processes. Interconnecting them via a developmental perspective would allow to assess criteria and thresholds for change and stability at a specific level (of, for example, genetic and epigenetic activity, cell metabolism incl. hormonal activity, neural network activity, sensory, and motor activity) within different developmental periods across the lifespan.

Cross-level effects cumulating in developmental cascades. An explicit developmental perspective on embodiment, building upon critical propositions of developmental theories, also highlights the cross-level dependencies and effects of embodiment processes and phenomena. According to the life span perspective on motor development (see, for example, Haywood and Getchell, 2020) skilled motor behavior follows from a self-organization process of multiple system levels within an individuum, e.g., muscular, skeletal, neural, cognitive, etc., referred to as “individual constraints” (Newell, 1986). Based on this assumption, it follows that, for developmental motor behavioral changes to occur, all individual constraints have to be developed to a required level. Here, the proposition that individual constraints can act as rate limiters, i.e., either restricting or facilitating the development or decline of motor skills, implies cross-level dependencies of development (see also Table 2). Masten and Cicchetti (2010) discuss such cross-level effects under the term developmental cascades (see Table 2). Developmental cascades capture cumulative effects within a developmental pathway brought by the multiple interactions occurring in developing systems after an environmental input or another developmental event. The key characteristic of such a cascade is that the effect spreads across levels, among domains at the same level, or even across developing systems and generations (Masten and Cicchetti, 2010, p. 492). From the perspective of developmental embodiment research, it would then be the goal to identify developmental cascades with cross-levels effects underlying embodiment phenomena. This also stipulates identification of levels involved and affected within a specific embodiment phenomenon, identification of transmission hubs between these levels as well as identification of time-points of transmission. These differ for the particular phenomenon under study, e.g., for the biological embedding of early adversity and its long-term impact on mental health, the way motor experiences ground the development of cognition and emotion processing, and how imagination techniques improve motor rehabilitation outcomes after a stroke.

Identification of transmission hubs. Trying to identify developmental cascades when taking the systemic and dynamic character of biological processes seriously, as from a developmental systems perspective, would require to account for all levels of the system at every time-point during development. However, such a comprehensive approach is not feasible in concrete empirical studies, even with cross-disciplinary collaborations addressing different levels, timescales, and data modalities. Therefore, we propose to focus on the identification of transmission hubs between levels of embodiment. Transmission hubs constitute the molecular, physiological, cognitive, etc. structures which participate in the transmission of signals related to a particular embodied experience across levels, such as, e.g., neural networks underlying motor execution that are also involved in imagination and cognitive processing, neural and hormonal correlates of interoception in emotion processing and related disorders (see section Developmental Embodiment Research: Cross-Disciplinary Examples, Example 4), molecular feedback loops underlying the regulation of synaptic plasticity, neurotransmitter activity, and the stress response, as well as processing of biomedical knowledge influencing self-perception, symptomatic experiences, and mental health. These transmission hubs are characterized by their critical role to enable or block transmission of developmental changes between levels, thereby stipulating and canalizing embodiment processes. Importantly, with respect to the developmental perspective, transmission hubs are not fixed across the lifespan, but change due to developmental processes, e.g., in the degree of plasticity, the involved biological, and functional levels of transmission, the signal intensity needed to induce transmission. They are also likely involved in the constitution of critical and sensitive periods but not limited to them.

Accounting for gain and loss. From research in the perspective of lifespan developmental psychology, we draw on the notion that gain and loss always occur together in ontogenetic development (Baltes, 1987) for our integrative framework for developmental embodiment research (see also Table 2). Thus, in addition to analyzing growth and maintenance as well as recovery and resilience, studying the regulation of loss is equally important. While lifespan developmental psychology focuses on the developmental consequences of this selective channeling process, developmental embodiment research additionally aims at identifying the mechanisms underlying these processes at different biological levels.

Functional domains differ in their developmental trajectories. Also in reference to research in the perspective of lifespan developmental psychology, we account for the notion that different functional domains have different developmental trajectories across the lifespan, which also differ in their range of changeability or plasticity and even between individuals with comparable functional outcome (Brandtstädter and Greve, 1994; Baltes et al., 1999; Staudinger and Baltes, 2001). As a methodological consequence, person-centered (holistic) and function-centered approaches need to be combined to study these developmental trajectories (Baltes et al., 1977; Baltes, 1987). Although a function-centered approach will probably be used most in developmental embodiment research, a person-centered approach might become more relevant when the field expands into translational research and when focusing on inter-individual differences in the expression of embodiment phenomena.

Accounting for sociocultural-historical changes. Finally, a developmental embodiment perspective reinforces the necessity to account for sociocultural-historical changes and their impact on the bodily preconditions of psychological functions. This includes the effects of socio-cultural contexts (family, school, work, etc.), historical changes of educational and professional systems, cultural norms, (religious and other) traditions, as well as historic events, such as war periods and collective traumatic events. Some examples following an environmental approach to embodiment are efforts to identify epigenetic mechanisms underlying the long-term impact of traumatic events such as the attacks of 9/11 (Kuan et al., 2017) or war crimes (Ramo-Fernández et al., 2015). Another example in this perspective are studies on changing neural networks and cognitive performance in children after entering school (Brod et al., 2017). Examples following an agency approach to embodiment are analyses of bio-looping effects of cultural knowledge and resources including scientific concepts and how they influence the active construction of self-perception patterns and identity, emotion regulation, and health and body related behavior (Seligman et al., 2015; Kirmayer and Gómez-Carrillo, 2019).

Thus, for developmental embodiment research, considering lifespan dynamics of embodiment does not only entail the consideration of different timescales of development, but also the consideration of different processes, which contribute to these developmental changes and the different timescales at which these processes act. Reconstructing the developmental cascade therefore requires integrating data generated with different experimental settings and study designs, at different time-points, at different levels, and across the involved disciplines.

Embodiment research is at a turning point. The growing amount of data from various studies across a wide range of disciplines and theoretical schools, investigating embodiment phenomena and their role especially in mental processing and functions, highlights the need for an interdisciplinary framework of embodiment research. Innovative research areas such as movement psychology, social and developmental neuroscience, computational psychosomatics, social and behavioral epigenetics, human-centered robotics, and many more, that are facing issues of data integration across different levels of embodiment, would profit tremendously from such a framework. Especially the integration of behavioral data with data from different biological levels, each of which depend on their own developmental timescales and dynamics, is challenging for these fields. In addition, there is a growing need for a cross-disciplinary consensus on level-specific criteria of embodiment. We propose that a developmental perspective on embodiment is able to provide a framework for overcoming such pressing issues, providing analytical tools to link timescales and levels of embodiment on a case-by-case basis, uncovering the underlying developmental processes, and providing a platform to clarify and, ultimately, bridge disciplinary boundaries among the involved research fields.

The proposed framework is not intended to serve as a guideline for one comprehensive embodiment research project, but to serve as a foundation for structuring a highly interdisciplinary research field and to allow for conceptual anchor points for interdisciplinary research endeavors. Building on both environmental and agency approaches to embodiment, as well as key concepts of developmental theory, the framework motivates the question of how a specific expression of embodied experiences relates to the process of incorporation of these experiences, and vice versa, based on the underlying developmental processes. The way to reconstruct these interrelations will be specific for each embodied function, and it will have to take into account not only the rise of a function, but also its maintenance and the regulation of loss. The developmental perspective allows to, first, connect different timescales of embodiment based on function-specific developmental pathways. It, second, allows to relate different system levels involved in embodiment processes to one another as they develop over the lifespan, based on their physiological and functional interconnectedness. Third, it allows to clarify disciplinary boundaries and their related criteria of embodiment, which are set according to detection methods and discipline standards. The translation of different embodiment criteria between levels, e.g., the behavioral level, the level of neural activity, and the genetic and epigenetic level, heavily depends on the knowledge about the specific developmental interconnectedness between these levels and related underlying developmental pathways for each specific embodied function under study. Here in particular, further research is needed, as such translation processes also provide the basis for cross-level data integration.

First cross-disciplinary examples, as presented in section Developmental Embodiment Research: Cross-Disciplinary Examples, already point toward the productivity of such a framework, but expansion to further research disciplines is needed to fill the knowledge gaps hindering an integrative conceptualization of embodiment. For that, we propose researchers should focus on transmission hubs across two or three levels for a specific embodied function or phenomenon, aiming at identifying developmental cascades which enable cross-level effects of embodiment. These studies would depend on the knowledge about the different developmental timescales of embodied functions and sensitive periods for the incorporation of embodied experiences at the different involved levels. Our proposed framework explicitly aims at providing a matrix and platform to bridge these different developmental timescales in the study of specific embodiment phenomena and, thus, has the potential to advance cross-level, cross-disciplinary embodiment research in the short and long run.

The first draft of the manuscript was written by VL and MK, and all authors contributed to and commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.