Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:11:07.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A review of case-based reasoning in cognition–action continuum: a step toward bridging symbolic and non-symbolic artificial intelligence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2013

Pinar Öztürk  and
Axel Tidemann
Pinar Öztürk
Affiliation:
Department of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Saelandsvei 7-9, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Axel Tidemann
Affiliation:
Department of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Saelandsvei 7-9, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In theories and models of computational intelligence, cognition and action have historically been investigated on separate grounds. We conjecture that the main mechanism of case-based reasoning (CBR) applies to cognitive tasks at various levels and of various granularity, and hence can represent a bridge—or a continuum—between the higher and lower levels of cognition. CBR is an artificial intelligence (AI) method that draws upon the idea of solving a new problem reusing similar past experiences. In this paper, we re-formulate the notion of CBR to highlight the commonalities between higher-level cognitive tasks such as diagnosis, and lower-level control such as voluntary movements of an arm. In this view, CBR is envisaged as a generic process independent from the content and the detailed format of cases. Diagnostic cases and internal representations underlying motor control constitute two instantiations of the case representation. In order to claim such a generic mechanism, the account of CBR needs to be revised so that its position in non-symbolic AI becomes clearer. The paper reviews the CBR literature that targets lower levels of cognition to show how CBR may be considered as a step toward bridging the gap between symbolic and non-symbolic AI.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 51 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

References

Aha, D. W., Molineaux, M., Ponsen, M. 2005. Learning to win: case-based plan selection in a real-time strategy game. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, Muñoz-avila, H. & Ricci, F. (eds). Springer, 5–20.Google Scholar
Arbib, M. 2002. The mirror system, imitation, and the evolution of language. In Imitation in Animals and Artifacts, Dautenhahn, K. & Nehaniv, C.L. (eds). MIT Press, 229–280.Google Scholar
Arkin, R. C. 1989. Motor schema-based mobile robot navigation. International Journal of Robotic Research 8(4), 92–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, K., Hammond, K. 1987. Compare and contrast, a test of expertise. In Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 273–284. Seattle, Washington.Google Scholar
Billard, A., Hayes, G. 1999. DRAMA, a connectionist architecture for control and learning in autonomous robots. Adaptive Behavior 7(1), 35–63.Google Scholar
Blakemore, S. J., Goodbody, S. J., Wolpert, D. M. 1998. Predicting the consequences of our own actions: the role of sensorimotor context estimation. Journal of Neuroscience 18, 7511–7518.Google Scholar
Brooks, R. A. 1991. Intelligence without representations. Artificial Intelligence Journal 47, 139–159.Google Scholar
Cangelosi, A., Riga, T. 2006. An embodied model for sensorimotor grounding and grounding transfer: experiments with epigenetic robots. Cognitive Science 30(4), 673–689.Google Scholar
Cisek, P.Kalaska, J. F. 2005. Neural correlates of reaching decisions in dorsal premotor cortex: specification of multiple direction choices and final selection of action. Neuron 45(5), 801–814.Google Scholar
Cunningham, P. 2009. A taxonomy of similarity mechanisms for case-based reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 21(11), 1532–1543.Google Scholar
Dapretto, M., Davies, M. S., Pfeifer, J. H., Scott, A. A., Sigman, M., Bookheimer, S. Y., Iacoboni, M. 2005. Understanding emotions in others: mirror neuron dysfunction in children with autism spectrum disorders. Nature Neuroscience 9, 28–30.Google Scholar
Demiris, Y., Khadhouri, B. 2006. Hierarchical attentive multiple models for execution and recognition of actions. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 54, 361–369.Google Scholar
de Mántaras, R. L., Mcsherry, D., Bridge, D., Leake, D., Smyth, B., Susan, C., Faltings, B., Maher, M. L., Cox, M. T., Forbus, K., Keane, M., Aamodt, A., Watson, I. 2005. Retrieval, reuse, revision and retention in case-based reasoning. The Knowledge Engineering Review 20(3), 215–240.Google Scholar
Díaz-Agudo, B., Gervás, P., González-Calero, P. A. 2003. Adaptation guided retrieval based on formal concept analysis. In Case-Based Reasoning Research & Development. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2689, 131–145.Google Scholar
Dinerstein, J., Ventura, D., Egbert, P. K. 2005. Fast and robust incremental action prediction for interactive agents. Computational Intelligence 21(1), 90–110.Google Scholar
Dinstein, I., Gardner, J., Jazayeri, M., Heeger, D. 2008. Executed and observed movements have different distributed representations in human aIPS. Journal of Neuroscience 28(44), 11231–11239.Google Scholar
Dinstein, I., Hasson, U., Rubin, N., Heeger, D. 2007. Brain areas selective for both observed and executed movements. Journal of Neurophysiology 98(3), 1415–1427.Google Scholar
Fagan, M., Cunningham, P. 2003. Case-based plan recognition in computer games. In Proceedings of the Fifth ICCBR. Springer, 161–170. Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
Filimon, F., Nelson, J. D., Hagler, D. J., Sereno, M. I. 2007. Human cortical representations for reaching: mirror neurons for execution, observation, and imagery. NeuroImage 37(4), 1315–1328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
French, R. M. 1999. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(4), 128–135.Google Scholar
Gabel, T., Veloso, M. M. 2001. Selecting Heterogeneous Team Players by Case-based Reasoning: A Case Study in Robotic Soccer Simulation. Technical report CMU-CS-01-165.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., Goldman, A. 1998. Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2(12).Google Scholar
Gaussier, P., Moga, S., Banquet, J. P., Quoy, M. 1998. From perception-action loops to imitation processes: a bottom-up approach of learning by imitation. Applied Artificial Intelligence 1(7), 701–727.Google Scholar
Grabert, M., Bridge, D. 2003. Case-based reuse of software examplets. Journal of Universal Computer Science 9, 627–640.Google Scholar
Grush, R. 2004. The emulation theory of representation: motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, 377–396.Google Scholar
Hamilton, A., Grafton, S. 2007. The motor hierarchy: from kinematics to goals and intentions. Sensorimotor Foundations of Higher Cognition 22, 381–408.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. 1989. Case-based planning: viewing planning as a memory task. Perspectives in Artificial Intelligence. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harnad, S. 1990. The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 42, 335–346.Google Scholar
Hartley, T., Mehdi, Q. 2009. Online action adaptation in interactive computer games. Entertainment Computing 7(2), 1–31.Google Scholar
Herwig, A., Waszak, F. 2009. Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62(2), 219–227.Google Scholar
Imamizu, H., Kuroda, T., Yoshioka, T., Kawato, M. 2004. Functional magnetic resonance imaging examination of two modular architectures for switching multiple internal models. Journal of Neuroscience 24(5), 1173–1181.Google Scholar
Ito, M. 1984. The Cerebellum and Neural Control. Raven Press.Google Scholar
Ito, M. 2008. Control of mental activities by internal models in the cerebellum. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9(4), 304–313.Google Scholar
Jaeger, H., Haas, H. 2004. Harnessing nonlinearity: predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless telecommunication. Science 304(5667), 78–80.Google Scholar
Jordan, M. I., Rumelhart, D. E. 1992. Forward models: supervised learning with a distal teacher. Cognitive Science 16, 307–354.Google Scholar
Jurišica, I., Glasgow, J. 1995. Applying case-based reasoning to control in robotics. In 3rd Robotics and Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, St. Hubert, Quebec, 189–196.Google Scholar
Jurišica, I., Glasgow, J. 1997. Improving performance of case-based classification using context-based relevance. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 6, 3–4.Google Scholar
Kandel, E. R., Schwartz, J. H., Jessell, T. M. 2000. Principles of Neural Science. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Karol, A., Nebel, B., Stanton, C., Williams, M.-A. 2003. Case based game play in the robocup four-legged league part 1 the theoretical model. In RoboCup, Polani, D., Browning, B. & Bonarini, A. (eds). Springer, 739–747.Google Scholar
Kerkez, B., Cox, M. 2003. Incremental case-based plan recognition with local predictions. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools: Architectures, Languages, Algorithms 12, 413–463.Google Scholar
Koehler, J. 1996. Planning from second principles. Artificial Intelligence 87, 148–187.Google Scholar
Kohler, E., Keysers, C., Umilta, M., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Rizzolatti, G. 2002. Hearing sounds, understanding actions: action representation in mirror neurons. Science 297(5582), 846–848.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. 1993. Case-Based Reasoning (Morgan Kaufmann Series in Representation and Reasoning). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J., Simpson, R., Sycara, K. 1985. A process model of case-based reasoning in problem solving. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, CA, 284–290.Google Scholar
Kravitz, J. H., Yaffe, F. 1972. Conditioned adaptation to prismatic displacement with a tone as the conditional stimulus. Percept Psychophysiology 12, 305–308.Google Scholar
Leake, D., Kinley, A. 1998. Integrating cbr components within a case-based planner. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98 Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning Integration, 96–105. Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Leake, D. B., Kinley, A., Wilson, D. 1995. Learning to improve case adaptation by introspective reasoning and cbr. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, 229–240. Sesimbra, Portugal.Google Scholar
Lee-Urban, S., Muñoz-Avila, H. 2009. Adaptation versus retrieval trade-off revisited: an analysis of boundary conditions. In ICCBR, 180–194.Google Scholar
Likhachev, M., Arkin, R. C. 2001. Spatio-temporal case-based reasoning for behavioral selection. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1627–1634. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Likhachev, M., Kaess, M., Arkin, R. C. 2002. Learning behavioral parameterization using spatio-temporal case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1282–1289. Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Lingnau, A., Gesierich, B., Caramazza, A. 2009. Asymmetric fMRI adaptation reveals no evidence for mirror neurons in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(24), 9925–9930.Google Scholar
Lopez, B., Plaza, E. 1993. Case-based planning for medical diagnosis. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS'93), 96–105. Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
Markman, A. B., Dietrich, E. 2000. In defense of representation. Cognitive Psychology 40, 138–171.Google Scholar
Massie, S., Wiratunga, N., Donati, A., Vicari, E. 2007. From anomaly reports to cases. In 7th International CBR Conference (ICCBR'07). Springer, 359–373. Belfast, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Matarić, M. J. 2002. Sensory-motor primitives as a basis for learning by imitation: linking perception to action and biology to robotics. In Imitation in Animals and Artifacts, Dautenhahn, K. & Nehaniv, C.L. (eds). MIT Press, 392–422.Google Scholar
Mehdi, Q., Gough, N., Elmaghraby, A. (eds). 2005. Online Learning From Observation For Interactive Computer Games. University of Wolverhampton, School of Computing and Information Technology.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N., Moore, M. K. 1977. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science 198, 75–78.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N., Moore, M. K. 1997. Explaining facial imitation: a theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting 6, 179–192.Google Scholar
Miall, R. C., Wolpert, D. M. 1996. Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks 9(8), 1265–1279.Google Scholar
Miall, R. C., Weir, D. J., Wolpert, D. M. W., Stein, J. F. S. 1993. Is the cerebellum a smith predictor? Journal of Motor Behavior 25(3), 203–216.Google Scholar
Muñoz-Avila, H., Cox, M. T. 2008. Case-based plan adaptation: an analysis and review. IEEE Intelligent Systems 23(4), 75–81.Google Scholar
Muñoz Avila, H., Hüllen, J. 1996. Feature weighting by explaining case-based planning episodes. In EWCBR '96: Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Advances in Case-Based Reasoning, Smith, I. & Faltings, B. (eds). Springer-Verlag, 280–294.Google Scholar
Oberman, L., Hubbard, E., McCleery, J., Altschuler, E., Ramachandran, V., Pineda, J. 2005. EEG evidence for mirror neuron dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders. Cognitive Brain Research 24(2), 190–198.Google Scholar
Öztürk, P. 2009. Levels and types of action selection: the action selection soup. Adaptive Behavior – Animals, Animats, Software Agents, Robots, Adaptive Systems 17(6), 537–554.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. 1962. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Ram, A. 1993. Indexing, elaboration and refinement: incremental learning of explanatory cases. Machine Learning 10, 201–248.Google Scholar
Ram, A., Arkin, R. C., Moorman, K., Clark, R. J. 1997. Case-based reactive navigation: a method for on-line selection and adaptation of reactive robotic control parameters. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B 27(3), 376–394.Google Scholar
Ram, A., Francis, A. J. 1996. Multi-plan retrieval and adaptation in an experience-based agent. In Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons, and Future Directions, Leake, D. (ed). AAAI Press, 167–183.Google Scholar
Ram, A., Santamara, J. C. 1993. Continuous case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 90, 86–93.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., Fogassi, L. 1996a. Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research 3, 131–141.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Matelli, M., Bettinardi, V., Paulesu, E., Perani, D., Fazio, F. 1996b. Localization of grasp representations in humans by PET: 1. Observation versus execution. Experimental Brain Research 111(2), 246–252.Google Scholar
Robin, N., Dominique, L., Toussaint, L., Blandin, Y., Guillot, A., Le Her, M. 2007. Effects of motor imagery training on returning serve accuracy in tennis: the role of imagery ability. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 2, 177–188.Google Scholar
Ros, R., Arcos, J. L., de Mántaras, R. L., Veloso, M. 2009. A case-based approach for coordinated action selection in robot soccer. Artificial Intelligence 173(9–10), 1014–1039.Google Scholar
Ros, R., Veloso, M., de Mántaras, R. L., Sierra, C., Arcos, J. L. 2006. Retrieving and reusing game plays for robot soccer. In Advances in Case-Based Reasoning, Roth-Berghofer, T. R., Göker, M. H. & Güvenir, H. A. (eds). Springer, 47–61.Google Scholar
Rosenbloom, L., Newell, A. 1987. Soar: an architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 33, 1–64.Google Scholar
Russel, S., Norvig, P. 2010. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 3rd edn.Google Scholar
Schaal, S. 1999. Is imitation learning the route to humanoid robots? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(6), 233–242.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. 1982. Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shadmehr, R., Mussa-Ivaldi, F. 1994. Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. Journal of Neuroscience 14(5), 3208–3224.Google Scholar
Shin, Y., Proctor, R., Capaldi, E. 2010. A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin 136(6), 943–974.Google Scholar
Smyth, B., Keane, M. T. 1998. Adaptation-guided retrieval: questioning the similarity assumption in reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 102, 249–293.Google Scholar
Sugandh, N., Ontañón, S., Ram, A. 2008. On-line case-based plan adaptation for real-time strategy games. In 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Fox, D. & Gomes, C.P. (eds). AAAI Press, 702–707.Google Scholar
Tidemann, A.Öztürk, P. 2008. Learning dance movements by imitation: a multiple model approach. In 31st Annual German Conference on AI, Dengel, A., Berns, K., Breuel, T, Bomarius, F. & Roth-Berghofer, T. R. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5243, 380–388. Springer.Google Scholar
Veloso, M. M., Muñoz Avila, H., Bergmann, R. 1996. Case-based planning: selected methods and systems. AI Communications 9(3), 128–137.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Whiten, A., Suddendorf, T., Perrett, D. 2001. Imitation, mirror neurons and autism. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 25(4), 287–295.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K., Kawato, M. 2003. A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 358(1431), 593–602.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Flanagan, J. R. 2001. Motor prediction. Current Biology 11(18), 729–732.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Kawato, M. 1998. Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks 11(7–8), 1317–1329.Google Scholar
Wolpert, D. M., Miall, R. C., Kawato, M. 1998. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in Cognitive Science 2.Google Scholar
Zimmermann-Schlatter, A., Schuster, C., Puhan, M. A., Siekierka, E., Steurer, J. 2008. Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 5(8), 8–18.Google Scholar