Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:31:45.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intentional strategies that make co-actors more predictable: The case of signaling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

Giovanni Pezzulo  and
Haris Dindo
Giovanni Pezzulo
Affiliation:
Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale “Antonio Zampolli,”CNR, 56124 Pisa, Italy. Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della Cognizione, CNR, 00185 Roma, Italy. [email protected]://www.istc.cnr.it/people/giovanni-pezzulo
Haris Dindo
Affiliation:
Computer Science Engineering, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy. [email protected]://roboticslab.dinfo.unipa.it/index.php/People/HarisDindo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pickering & Garrod (P&G) explain dialogue dynamics in terms of forward modeling and prediction-by-simulation mechanisms. Their theory dissolves a strict segregation between production and comprehension processes, and it links dialogue to action-based theories of joint action. We propose that the theory can also incorporate intentional strategies that increase communicative success: for example, signaling strategies that help remaining predictable and forming common ground.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 371 - 372
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

Bargh, J. A. & Chartrand, T. L. (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist 54:462–79.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Ausilio, A., Badino, L., Li, Y., Tokay, S., Craighero, L., Canto, R., Aloimonos, Y. & Fadiga, L. (2012a) Leadership in orchestra emerges from the causal relationships of movement kinematics. PLoS ONE 7(5): e35757. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0035757.Google Scholar
Dindo, H., Zambuto, D. & Pezzulo, G. (2011) Motor simulation via coupled internal models using sequential Monte Carlo. Proceedings of IJCAI 2011:2113–19.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. & Frith, U. (2008) Implicit and explicit processes in social cognition. Neuron 60(3):503–10. DOI:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.10.032.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. & Pickering, M. J. (2004) Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(1):8–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grush, R. (2004) The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(3):377–96.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., Stolyarova, E. I., Sundberg, U. & Lacerda, F. (1997) Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science 277(5326):684–86.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006) On the human “interaction engine.” In: Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, ed. Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C. (Cur.), pp. 39–69. Berg.Google Scholar
Moore, R. K. (2007) PRESENCE: A human-inspired architecture for speech-based human–machine interaction. IEEE Transactions on Computers 56(9):1176–88.Google Scholar
Pezzulo, G. (2011b) The “interaction engine”: A common pragmatic competence across linguistic and non-linguistic interactions. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development. 4(2):105–23.Google Scholar
Pezzulo, G. (2011c) Shared representations as coordination tools for interactions. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. 2(2):303–33.Google Scholar
Pezzulo, G. & Dindo, H. (2011) What should I do next? Using shared representations to solve interaction problems. Experimental Brain Research 211(3):613–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J. & Garrod, S. (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(2):169–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, L., Becchio, C., Bara, B. G. & Castiello, U. (2009) Does the intention to communicate affect action kinematics? Consciousness and Cognition 18(3):766–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2009.06.004.Google Scholar
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H. & Knoblich, G. (2006a) Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(2):70–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vesper, C., van der Wel, R. P. R. D., Knoblich, G. & Sebanz, N. (2011) Making oneself predictable: Reduced temporal variability facilitates joint action coordination. Experimental Brain Research 211(3–4):517–30. DOI:10.1007/s00221-011-2706-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K. & Kawato, M. (2003) A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 358(1431):593–602. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2002.1238.Google Scholar