Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 96, Issue 5, pp 471–486 | Cite as

Modelling memory functions with recurrent neural networks consisting of input compensation units: II. Dynamic situations

Original Paper

Abstract

Modelling the cognitive abilities of humans or animals or building agents that are supposed to behave cognitively requires modelling a memory system that is able to store and retrieve various contents. The content to be stored is assumed to comprise information about more or less invariant environmental objects as well as information about movements. A combination of information about both objects and movements may be called a situation model. Here we focus, in part, on models storing dynamic patterns. In particular, two abilities of humans in representing dynamical systems receive special focus: the capability of representing the acceleration of objects, as can be found in the movement of a pendulum or freely falling objects, and the capability of representing actions of transfer, i.e. motion from one point to another, have been modelled using recurrent networks consisting of input compensation units. In addition, possibilities of combining static and dynamic properties within a single model are studied.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barsalou LB (1999) Perceptual symbols systems. Behav Brain Sci 22:577–660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouwer A-M, Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (2002) Perception of acceleration with short presentation times: can acceleration be used in interception?. Percept Psychophys 64:1160–1168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cangelosi A (2004) The sensorimotor bases of linguistic structure: experiments with grounded adaptive agents. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 487–496Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky N (1957) Syntactic structures. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  5. Chomsky N (1959) A review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35:26–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Cruse H (2003) The evolution of cognition—a hypothesis. Cogn Sci 27:135–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cruse H (1999) Feeling our body—the basis of cognition?. Evol Cogn 5:162–173Google Scholar
  9. Feldman J, Narayanan S (2004) Embodied meaning in a neural theory of language. Brain Lang 89:385–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fillmore C (1988) The mechanics of “Construction Grammar”. Berkeley Linguist Soc 14:35–55Google Scholar
  11. Fincher-Kiefer R (2001) Perceptual components of situation models. Mem Cogn 29:336–343Google Scholar
  12. Fisher C (1994) Structure and meaning in the verb lexicon: input from a syntasx-aided verb learning procedure. Lang Cogn Proc 9:473–518Google Scholar
  13. Fogassi L, Ferrari PF, Gesierich B, Rozzi S, Chersi F, Rizzolatti G (2005) Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding. Science 308:662–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freyd JJ (1993) Five hunches about perceptual processes and dynamic representations. In: Meyer D, Kornblum S (eds) Attention and Performance XIV: Synergies in Experimental Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, and Cognitive Neuroscience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 99–119Google Scholar
  15. Freyd JJ, Finke RA (1984) Representational momentum. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 10:126–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. Glenberg AM, Robertson DA (1999) Indexical understanding of instructions. Discour Proc 28:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glenberg AM, Robertson DA (2000) Symbol grounding and meaning: a comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. J Mem Lang 43:379–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glenberg AM, Kaschak MP (2002) Grounding language in action. Psychol Bull Rev 9:558–565Google Scholar
  20. Goldberg AE (1995) A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Hairer E, Lubich C, Wanner G (2002) Geometric numerical integration. Structure-preserving algorithms for ordinary differential equations. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauk O, Johnsrude I, Pulvermuller F (2004) Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41:301–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauser MD, Chomsky N, Fitch T (2002) The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?. Science 298:1569–1579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Indovina I, Maffei V, Bosco G, Zago M, Macaluso E, Lacquaniti F (2005) Representation of visual gravitational motion in the human vestibular cortex. Science 308:416–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson-Laird PN (1983) Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaschak MP, Glenberg AM (2000) Constructing meaning: the role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. J Mem Lang 43:508–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kourtzi Z, Kanwisher N (2000) Activation in human MT/MST by static images with implied motion. J Cogn Neurosci 12: 48–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kühn S, Cruse H (2005a) Mental representation and cognitive behaviour – a recurrent neural network approach. In: Cangelosi A, Bugmann G, Borisyuk R (eds) Modeling Language, Cognition and Action: Proceedings of the 9th workshop on neural computation and psychology. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 183–192Google Scholar
  29. Kühn S, Cruse H (2005b) Static mental representations in recurrent neural networks for the control of dynamic behavioural sequences. Connect Sci 17:343–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kühn S, Beyn W-J, Cruse H (2007) Modelling memory functions with recurrent neural networks consisting of input compensation units: I. Static situations. Biol Cybern (in press)Google Scholar
  31. Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  32. Lisberger SG, Movshon JA (1999) Visual motion analysis for pursuit eye movements in area MT of macaque monkeys. J Neurosci 19:2224–2246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McIntyre J, Zago M, Berthoz A, Lacquaniti F (2001) Does the brain model Newton’s laws?. Nat Neurosci 4:693–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Naigles LR, Terrazas P (1998) Motion verb generalization in English and Spanish: influences in language and syntax. Psychol Sci 9:363–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nauck D, Klawonn F, Borgelt C, Kruse R (2003) Neuronale Netze und Fuzzy Systeme. Vieweg, Braunschweig/WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  36. Noton D, Stark L (1971) Scanpaths in saccadic eye movements while viewing and recognizing patterns. Vis Res 11:929–942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ochs E, Gonzales P, Jacoby S (1996) “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: grammar and graphic representation in the interpretative activity of physicists. In: Ochs E, Schegloff EA, Thompson SA (eds) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 328–369Google Scholar
  38. Pinker S (1989) Learnability and Cognition: the Acquisition of Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. Premack D (2004) Is language the key to human intelligence?. Science 303:318–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:169–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Steels L (1995) Intelligence—dynamics and representations. In: Steels L (ed) The Biology and Technology of Intelligent Autonomous Agents. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 72–89Google Scholar
  42. Steels L (2002) Simulating the evolution of a grammar for case. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on the evolution of language, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  43. Sowa JF (ed) (1991) Principles of semantic networks: explorations in the representation of knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CAGoogle Scholar
  44. Todd JT (1981) Visual information about moving objects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 7:975–810PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomasello M (2000) The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. van Dijk TA, Kintsch W (1983) Strategies in text comprehension. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. von Eckardt B (1993) What is cognitive science?. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  48. von Eckardt B (1999) Mental representation. In: Wilson RA, Keil FC (eds) MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 527–529Google Scholar
  49. Widrow B, Hoff ME (1960) Adaptive switching circuits. In: 1960 WESCON convention record, Part IV. Institute of Radio Engineers, New York, pp 96–104Google Scholar
  50. Wolpert DM, Doya K, Kawato M (2003) A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 358:593–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolpert DM, Kawato M (1998) Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw 11:1317–1329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zwaan RA, Madden CL, Yaxley RH, Aveyard ME (2004) Moving words: dynamic representations in language comprehension. Cogn Sci 28:611–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zwaan RA, Radvansky, Gabriel A (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychol Bull 123:162–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological Cybernetics, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations