Imitation and Social Learning in Robots, Humans and Animals Behavioural, Social and Communicative Dimensions
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of plates
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Introduction: the constructive interdisciplinary viewpoint for understanding mechanisms and models of imitation and social learning
- Part I Correspondence problems and mechanisms
- Part II Mirroring and ‘mind-reading’
- 4 A neural architecture for imitation and intentional relations
- 5 Simulation theory of understanding others: a robotics perspective
- 6 Mirrors and matchings: imitation from the perspective of mirror-self-recognition, and the parietal region's involvement in both
- Part III What to imitate?
- Part IV Development and embodiment
- Part V Synchrony and turn-taking as communicative mechanisms
- Part VI Why imitate? – Motivations
- Part VII Social feedback
- Part VIII The ecological context
- Index
- Plate section
- References
5 - Simulation theory of understanding others: a robotics perspective
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 December 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of plates
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Introduction: the constructive interdisciplinary viewpoint for understanding mechanisms and models of imitation and social learning
- Part I Correspondence problems and mechanisms
- Part II Mirroring and ‘mind-reading’
- 4 A neural architecture for imitation and intentional relations
- 5 Simulation theory of understanding others: a robotics perspective
- 6 Mirrors and matchings: imitation from the perspective of mirror-self-recognition, and the parietal region's involvement in both
- Part III What to imitate?
- Part IV Development and embodiment
- Part V Synchrony and turn-taking as communicative mechanisms
- Part VI Why imitate? – Motivations
- Part VII Social feedback
- Part VIII The ecological context
- Index
- Plate section
- References
Summary
Introduction
Simulation theory
According to the simulation theory, ‘human beings are able to use the resources of their own minds to simulate the psychological etiology of the behaviour of others’, typically by making decisions within a ‘pretend context’ (Gordon, 1999). During observation of another agent's behaviour, the execution apparatus of the observer is taken ‘off-line’ and is used as a manipulable model of the observed behaviour.
From a roboticist's point of view, the fundamental characteristics of the simulation theory are:
Utilization of the same computational systems for a dual purpose; both behaviour generation as well as recognition.
Taking systems off-line (suspending their normal input/output) which necessitates a redirection and suppression of input (feeding ‘pretend states’ following a perspective taking process, suppressing the current ones that are coming from the visual sensors while this is performed) and output from/to the system to achieve this dual use.
Simulation theory is often set as a rival to the ‘theory-theory’, where a separate theoretical reasoning system is used; the observer perceives and reasons about the observed behaviour not by simulating it, but by utilizing a set of causal laws about behaviours.
It is important to note that in the experiments we describe here, ‘understanding’ the demonstrated behaviour equates to inferring its goal in terms of sensorimotor states, and does not imply inference of the emotional, motivational and intentional components of mental states.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Imitation and Social Learning in Robots, Humans and AnimalsBehavioural, Social and Communicative Dimensions, pp. 89 - 102Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007
References
(1991). Does immediate imitation influence long-term memory for observed actions?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 235–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2002). Imitating with ALICE: learning to imitate corresponding actions across dissimilar embodiments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 32 (4), 482–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentivegna, D. and Atkeson, C. (2002). A framework for learning from observation using primitives. Presented at the Symposium of Robocup 2002, Fukuoka, Japan.
, , and (2003). Imitative response tendencies in patients with frontal brain lesions. Neuropsychology, 17(2), 265–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2001). The inhibition of imitative response tendencies. NeuroImage, 14, 1416–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2004). The mirror neuron system and action recognition. Brain and Language, 89, 370–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1996). Imitation and utilisation behaviour. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 61, 396–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996). Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate?Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 87–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , , , and (1997). Brain activity during observation of actions: influence of action content and subject's strategy. Brain, 120, 1763–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1991). Vegetative response during imagined movement is proportional to mental effort. Behavioural Brain Research, 42, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demiris, Y. and Hayes, G. (2002). Imitation as a dual route process featuring predictive and learning components: a biologically plausible computational model. In and (eds.), Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
and (2003). Distributed, prediction perception of actions: a biologically inspired architecture for imitation and learning. Connection Science, 15 (4), 231–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). New insights on sensorimotor integration: from hand action to speech perception. Brain and Cognition, 53, 514–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1995). Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73 (6), 2608–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2002). The neural correlates of action understanding. In Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 13–36.Google Scholar
, , and (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2 (12), 493–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, R. (1999). Simulation vs theory-theory. In and (eds.), The MIT Encyclopaedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 765–6.Google Scholar
, and (2001). Mosaic model for sen-sorimotor learning and control. Neural Computation, 13, 2201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Abstraction in recognition to solve the correspondence problem for robot imitation. In Proceedings of TAROS-04, University of Essex, UK, 63–70.Google Scholar
and (2005). Hierarchies of coupled inverse and forward models for abstraction in robot action planning, recognition and imitation. In Proceedings of the AISB 2005 Symposium on Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. AISB.Google Scholar
, and (1986). Human autonomy and the frontal lobes – Part I: imitation and utilization behavior: a neuropsychological study of 75 patients. Annals of Neurology, 19 (4), 326–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (1998). Behaviour-based primitives for articulated control. In From Animals to Animats 5, Zurich, Switzerland: MIT Press.Google Scholar
and (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: a rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London B, 358, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nehaniv, C. and Dautenhahn, K. (2002). The correspondence problem. In and (eds.), Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Chapter 2, pages 41–61.Google Scholar
and (2004). A system in the human brain for predicting the actions of others. Nature Neuroscience, 7 (1), 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 661–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2002). The man who executed imagined movements: evidence for dissociable components of the body schema. Brain and cognition, 50, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1995). On relations between perceiving, imagining and performing in the learning of cyclical movement sequences. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 191–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996). Imagery and perception-action mediation in imitative actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1992). The effect of imagery perspectives on the psychophysical responses to imagined exercise. Behaviour Brain Research, 52, 167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1995). An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science, 269, 1880–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks, 11, 1317–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (1998). Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2 (9), 338–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , and (1995). Imagination of dynamic exercise produced ventilatory responses which were more apparent in competitive sportsmen. Journal of Physiology, 482, 713–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1996). Routes to actions and their efficacy for remembering. Memory, 4 (1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 2
- Cited by