Towards Affordance-Based Robot Control pp 27-46 | Cite as
Learning Causality and Intentional Actions
Abstract
Previous research has shown that human actions can be detected and classified using their motion patterns. However, simply labelling motion patterns is not sufficient in a cognitive system that requires the ability to reason about the agent’s intentions, and also to account for how the environmental setting (e.g. the presence of nearby objects) affects the way an action is performed. In this paper, we develop a graphical model that captures how the low level movements that form a high level intentional action (e.g. reaching for an object) vary depending on the situation. We then present statistical learning algorithms that are able to learn characterisations of specific actions from video using this representation. Using object manipulation tasks, we illustrate how the system infers an agent’s goals from visual information and compare the results with findings in psychological experiments. In particular we show that we are able to reproduce a key result from the child development literature on action learning in children. This provides support for our model having properties in common with action learning in humans. At the end of the paper we argue that our action representation and learning model is also suitable as a framework for understanding and learning about affordances. An important element of our framework is that it will allow affordances to be understood as indicative of possible intentional actions.
Keywords
Action Model Action Recognition Intentional Action Causal Power Causal NetworkPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Bajcsy, R.: Object concepts and action: Extracting affordances from objects parts. Acta Psychologica 115(1), 69–96 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Gergely, G., Csibra, G.: Teleological reasoning in infancy: the naive theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(7), 287–292 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Glymour, C.: Learning causes: Psychological explanations of causal explanation. Minds and Machines 8, 39–60 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Gong, S., Xiang, T.: Recognition of group activities using dynamic probabilistic networks. In: IEEE Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 742–749 (2003)Google Scholar
- 5.Hongeng, S., Nevatia, R.: Large-scale event detection using semi-hidden markov models. In: IEEE Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, Nice, France, pp. 1455–1462 (2003)Google Scholar
- 6.Isard, M., Blake, A.: Icondensation: Unifying low-level and high-level tracking in a stochastic framework. In: Burkhardt, H.-J., Neumann, B. (eds.) ECCV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1406, pp. 893–908. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Oliver, N., Rosario, B., Pentland, A.: A bayesian computer vision system for modeling human interactions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 22(8), 831–843 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Pearl, J.: Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
- 9.Tsotsos, J.K., Liu, Y., Martinez-Trujillo, J.C., Pomplun, M., Simine, E., Zhou, K.: Attending to visual motion. Journal of Computer Vision and Image Understanding 100, 3–40 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Vogler, C., Metaxas, D.: A framework for recognizing the simultaneous aspects of american sign language. Journal of Computer Vision and Image Understanding 81, 358–384 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar