Advertisement

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 238–274 | Cite as

Artificial intelligence and brain theory: Unities and diversities

  • Michael A. Arbib
Article

Abstract

This review article synthesizes studies ofartificial intelligence (AI) andbrain theory (BT). In the control ofmovement, AI offers insight into overallplanning of behavior; while control theory enables BT to modelfeedback andfeedforward adjustments by the spinal cord, brainstem, and cerebellum. We stressaction-oriented perception—analyzing perception in terms of preparation for interaction with the world, and offer a new concept of aschema as the internal representation of an “object” in the sense of a domain of interaction. A schema comprises input-matching routines, action routines, and competition and cooperation routines. The internal representation of the world is then given by a “collage” of tuned and activated schemas.Segmentation of input andregion labeling are offered as two mechanisms in the activation of a suitable “collage.”

We see a number of studies that offer hope of a unified theory ofcompetition and cooperation within a single subsystem: brain theory models of the reticular formation, of the frog midbrain visual system, and of segmentation on prewired features; and AI models of segmentation on ad hoc features, and of region labeling. We then turn to the modeling of a set of brain regions as acooperative computation system—a distributed structure in which each system has its own “goal structure” for selecting information to act on from its environment, and for transmitting the results to suitable receivers. We use this to describe a few findings ofneurology. We then sample AI studies of computerunderstanding of natural language, ascribing particular significance to a speech understanding system configured as a cooperative computation system.

The literatures of AI and BT hardly overlap at all, and differ widely in choice of both problem and method. The aim of this article is to overcome these diversities by extracting contributions from extant AI and BT that can be melded into the creation of atop-down brain theory: the building of a coherent model of cooperative computation within which the computational roles of brain regions, and of neurons within those regions, can be analyzed.

Keywords

Brain Region Natural Language Internal Representation Unify Theory Reticular Formation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, G. I., and Tsukahara, N. Cerebrocerebellar communication systems.Physiological Review 1974,54, 957–1006.Google Scholar
  2. Arbib, M. A. Cognition—A cybernetic approach. In Paul L. Garvin (Ed.),Cognition: A multiple view. Washington, D.C.: Spartan 1970. Chap. 13, pp. 331–348.Google Scholar
  3. Arbib, M. A.The metaphorical brain. New York: Interscience 1972.Google Scholar
  4. Arbib, M. A. Segmentation, Schemas, and cooperative computation. In S. Levin (Ed.),Studies in biomathematics. MAA Studies in Mathematics. Mathematical Association of America, 1975a. In press.Google Scholar
  5. Arbib, M. A. Parallelism, slides, schemas, and frames.Two papers on frames and schemas. COINS Technical Report 75C-9, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1975b.Google Scholar
  6. Arbib, M. A.Brain theory and artificial intelligence. London/New York: Academic Press, 1976. To appear.Google Scholar
  7. Arbib, M. A., Boylls, C. C., and Dev, P. Neural models of spatial perception and the control of movement. In W. D. Keidel, W. Händler, and M. Spreng (Eds.),Kybernetik und Bionik/Cybernetics and Bionics München/Wien Oldenbourg, 1974. Pp. 216–231.Google Scholar
  8. Arbib, M. A., Franklin, G. F., and Nilsson N. Some ideas on information processing in the cerebellum. In E. R. Caianiello (Ed.),Neural networks. Berlin/New York: Springer-Verlag, 1968. Pp. 43–58.Google Scholar
  9. Barlow, H. B., Blakemore, C., and Pettigrew, J. D. The neural mechanism of binocular depth discrimination.Journal of Physiology 1967,193, 327–342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Barlett, F. C.,Remembering. London/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1932.Google Scholar
  11. Boylls, C. C. A theory of cerebellar function with applications to locomotion. I. The physiological role of climbing fiber inputs in anterior lobe operation. COINS Technical Report 75C-6 University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. Braitenberg, V., and Onesto, N. The cerebellar cortex as a timing organ. InProceedings of the Congresso di Instituto di Medicina Cibernetica, Naples 1969. Pp. 239–255.Google Scholar
  13. Charniak, E. Organization and inference in a frame-like system of common knowledge. In R. C. Schank and B. L. Nash-Webber (Eds.),Proceedings of the Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Washington, D.C.: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1975, Pp. 42–51.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N..Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  15. Dev, P. Computer simulation of a dynamic visual perception model.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 1975,7, 511–528.Google Scholar
  16. Didday, R. L. The simulation and modelling of distributed information processing in the frog visual system, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, 1970.Google Scholar
  17. Didday, R. L., and Arbib, M. A. Eye-movements and visual perception: A “two-visual system” model.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 1975,7, 547–569.Google Scholar
  18. Doran, J., and Michie, D. Experiments with the graph traverser program.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A 1966,294, 235–259.Google Scholar
  19. Eccles, J. C. The cerebellum as a computer: Patterns in space and time.Journal of Physiology 1973,229, 1–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Erman, L., and Lesser, V. A multi-level organization for problem-solving using many, diverse, cooerating sources of knowledge. InProceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Cambridge, Mass.: The Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, M.I.T. 1975.Google Scholar
  21. Fikes, R. E., Hart, P. E., and Nilsson, N. J. Learning and executing generalized robot plans.Artificial Intelligence 1972,3 251–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fikes, R. E., and Nilsson N. J. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving.Artificial Intelligence 1971,2, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Furth, H. G.,Piaget and knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.Google Scholar
  24. Goffman, E.Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper Colophon Books.Google Scholar
  25. Gregory, R. L. The brain as an engineering problem. In W. H. Thorpe and O. L. Zangwill (Eds.),Current problems in animal behaviour. London/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1961.Google Scholar
  26. Grillner, S.. Locomotion in vertebrates: Central mechanisms and reflex interaction.Physiological Review 1975,55, 247–304.Google Scholar
  27. Hanson, A. R., Riseman, E. M., and Nagin, P. Region growing in textured outdoor scenes. InProceedings of the Third Milwaukee Symposium on Automatic Computation and Control. 1975, Pp. 407–417.Google Scholar
  28. Hart, P., Nilsson, N. J., and Raphael, B. A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths.IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics 1968,SSC-4, 100–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hewitt, C. Planner: A language for proving theorems in robots. In D. Walker and L. Norton (Eds.),Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Bedford, Mass.: The MITRE Corporation 1969.Google Scholar
  30. Hewitt, C., and Smith, B. Towards a programming apprentice.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1975,1, 26–45.Google Scholar
  31. Holmes, G., The cerebellum of Man.Brain 1939,62, 1–30.Google Scholar
  32. Hubel, D. H., and Wiesel, T. N. Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex.Journal of Neurophysiology 1962,28, 229–289.Google Scholar
  33. Ingle, D. Visual releasers of prey-catching behavior in frogs and toads.Brain Behavior and Evolution 1968,1, 500–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ingle, D., and Sprague, J. M. Sensorimotor function of the midbrain tectum.Neuroscience Research Program Bulletin 1975,13 No. 2.Google Scholar
  35. Ito, M. The control mechanisms of cerebellar motor systems. In F. O. Schmitt and F. G. Worden (Eds.),The neurosciences: Third study program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1974. Pp. 293–303.Google Scholar
  36. Julesz, B.Foundations of cyclopean perception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  37. Kilmer, W. L., McCulloch, W. S., and Blum, J. A model of the vertebrate central command system.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 1969,1 279–309.Google Scholar
  38. Lashley, K. S.Brain mechanisms and intelligence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929.Google Scholar
  39. Lashley, K. S. [1951], The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. Jeffress (Ed.),Cerebral mechanisms in behavior New York: Interscience. Pp. 112–136.Google Scholar
  40. Lettvin, J. Y., Maturana, H., McCulloch, W. S., and Pitts, W. H. What the frog’s eye tells the frog’s brain.Proceedings of the IRE 1959,47 1940–1951.Google Scholar
  41. Lighthill, J.,Artificial intelligence: A paper symposium. London: Science Research Council, 1973.Google Scholar
  42. Llinas, R. R. The cortex of the cerebellum.Scientific American January 1975,232, 56–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Luria, A. R.The working brain. Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1973.Google Scholar
  44. McCulloch, W. S. A Heterarchy of values determined by the topology of nervous nets.Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 1949,11, 89–93.Google Scholar
  45. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E. and Pribram, K. H.Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.Google Scholar
  46. Milner, B. Some effects of frontal lobectomy in man In J. M. Warren and K. Akert (Eds.),The frontal granular cortex and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964, Pp. 313–334.Google Scholar
  47. Minsky, M. L. A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston, (Ed.),The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Pp. 211–277.Google Scholar
  48. Montalvo, F. S. Consensus vs. competition in neural networks.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 1975,7, 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nauta, W. J. H. The problem of the frontal lobe: A reinterpretation.Journal of Psychiatric Research 1971,8, 167–187.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Nelson, J. I. Globality and stereoscopic fusion in binocular vision.Journal of Theoretical Biology 1975.Google Scholar
  51. Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., and Simon, H. A. Report on a general problem-solving program for a computer. InInformation processing: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Processing. New York: UNESCO, 1960. Pp. 256–264.Google Scholar
  52. Newell, A. and Simon, H. A.Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  53. Orlovsky, G. N. The effect of different descending systems on flexor and extensor activity during locomotion.Brain Research 1972,40, 359–371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Pettigrew, J. D., Nikara, T., and Bishop, P. O. Binocular interaction on single units in cat striate cortex.Experimental Brain Research 1968,6, 391–410.Google Scholar
  55. Pitts, W. H., and McCulloch, W. S. How we know universals, the perception of auditory and visual forms.Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics 1947,9, 127–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenfeld, A., Hummel, R. A., and Zucker, S. W. Scene labelling by relaxation operations. TR-379, Computer Science Center, University of Maryland, 1975.Google Scholar
  57. Sacerdoti, E. D. Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spacesArtificial Intelligence 1974,5, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schank, R. C., and Abelson, R. P. Scripts, plans and knowledge InProceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, Mass.: The Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, M.I.T., 1975.Google Scholar
  59. Schank, R. C., and Colby, K. M. (Eds.)Computer models of thought and language. New York: Freeman, 1973.Google Scholar
  60. Schank, R. C., and Nash-Webber, B. L. (Eds.).Proceedings of the Workshop on Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. Washington, D.C.: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1975.Google Scholar
  61. Schank, R. C., and Rieger, C. J. III. Inference and the computer understanding of natural language.Artificial Intelligence 1974,5, 373–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schank, R. C., andWilks, Y. The goals of linguistic theory revisited.Lingua 1974,34, 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scheibel, M. E., and Scheibel, A. B., The brainstem core—An integrative matrix. In M. Mesarovic (Ed.),Systems theory and biology. Berlin/New York: Springer-Verlag, 1968. Pp. 261–285.Google Scholar
  64. Schmidt, C. F. Understanding human action. InProceedings of the Workshop on Theoretical Issues in National Language Processing. Washington, D.C.: Association for Computational Linguistics, 1975. Pp. 196–200.Google Scholar
  65. Searle, J. R. What is a speech act? In Max Black (Ed.),Philosophy in America. London: Allen & Unwin, 1965 Pp. 221–239.Google Scholar
  66. Selfridge, O. G.. Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. InMechanization of thought processes. London: H.M.S.O., 1959, Pp. 513–526.Google Scholar
  67. Stein, R. B. Peripheral control of movement.Physiological Review 1974,54, 215–243.Google Scholar
  68. Szentágothai, J., and Arbib, M. A.Conceptual models of neural organization.NRP Bulletin 1974,12, No. 3 (Republished by MIT Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  69. Thorne, J. P., Bratley, R., and Dewar, H. The syntactic analysis of English by machine. In D. Michie (Ed.),Machine Intelligence. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1968. Vol. 3 pp. 281–309.Google Scholar
  70. Wilks, Y. Natural language understanding systems within the AI paradigm. Standford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Memo, AIM-237, 1974.Google Scholar
  71. Winograd S. and Cowan, J. D.Reliable computation in the presence of noise. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  72. Winograd, T.Understanding natural language. London/New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  73. Woods, W. A. Transition network grammars for natural language analysis.Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery 1970,10, 591–606.Google Scholar
  74. Woods, W. A. Progress in natural language understanding—An application to lunar geology. InProceedings of the National Computer Conference Pp. 441–450.Google Scholar
  75. Wurtz, R. H., and Goldberg, M. E. The primate superior colliculus and the shift of visual attention,Investigative Opthalmology, 1972,11, 441–448.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academic Press, Inc. 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Arbib
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer and Information Science Department, Center for Systems NeuroscienceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst

Personalised recommendations