1. Cangelosi A, Greco A, Harnad S (2000). From robotic toil to symbolic theft: Grounding transfer from entry-level to higher-level Categories. Connection Science, 12: 143-162

2. Cangelosi A, Harnad S (2000). The adaptive advantage of symbolic theft over sensorimotor toil: Grounding language in perceptual categories. Evolution of Communication, 4: 1173. Elman JL, Bates EA, Johnson MH, Karmiloff-Smith A, Parisi D, and Plunkett K (1996). Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge: MIT

4. Jacobs RA, Kosslyn SM (1994). Encoding shape and spatial relations: The role of receptive field size in coordinating complementary representations. Cognitive Science, 18: 361-386.

5. Harnad S (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42: 335-346

6. Harnad S (1993). Grounding symbols in the analog world with neural nets. Think, 2: 12-78

7. Harnad S, Hanson SJ, Lubin J (1995). Learned categorical perception in neural nets: Implications for symbol grounding. In Honavar V, Uhr L (Eds) Symbol Processors and Connectionist Network Models in Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Modeling: Steps toward principled integration. Academic Press (p. 191-206)

8. Plunkett K, Sinha C, Moller MF, Strandsry O (1992). Symbol grounding or the emergence of symbols? Vocabulary grouth in children and a connectionist net. Connection Science, 4(3-4): 293-312

9. Steels L (2002). Grounding symbols through evolutionary language games. In Cangelosi A, Parisi D (Eds) Simulating the Evolution of Language, (p. 211-226), London: Springer

10. Stuart EJ, Cangelosi A (1999). Unpublished data. University of Plymouth