Time Scales of Sensorimotor Contingencies

  • Alexander Maye
  • Andreas K. Engel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7366)

Abstract

In Sensorimotor Contingency Theory (SMCT) differences between the perceptual qualities of sensory modalities are explained by the different structure of dependencies between a human’s actions and the ensuing changes in sensory stimulation. It distinguishes modality-related Sensory-Motor Contingencies (SMCs), that describe the structure of changes for individual sensory modalities, and object-related SMCs, that capture the multisensory patterns caused by actions directed towards objects. These properties suggest a division of time scales in that modality-related SMCs describe the immediate effect of actions on characteristics of the sensory signal, and object-related SMCs account for sequences of actions and sensory observations. We present a computational model of SMCs that implements this distinction and allows to analyze the properties of the different SMC types. The emergence of perceptual capabilities is demonstrated in a locomotive robot controlled by this model that develops an action-based understanding for the size of its confinement without using any distance sensors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    O’Regan, J., Noë, A.: A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24, 939–1031 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Noë, A.: Action in perception. MIT Press (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engel, A.: Directive minds: how dynamics shapes cognition. In: Stewart, J., Gapenne, O., Di Paolo, E.A. (eds.) Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science, pp. 219–243. MIT Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choe, Y., Yang, H.F., Eng, D.Y.: Autonomous learning of the semantics of internal sensory states based on motor exploration. International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 4, 211–243 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fine, P., Di Paolo, E.A., Izquierdo, E.: Adapting to Your Body. In: Almeida e Costa, F., Rocha, L.M., Costa, E., Harvey, I., Coutinho, A. (eds.) ECAL 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4648, pp. 203–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bovet, S., Pfeifer, R.: Emergence of delayed reward learning from sensorimotor coordination. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2272–2277 (August 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Möller, R., Schenck, W.: Bootstrapping cognition from behavior – a computerized thought experiment. Cognitive Science 32(3), 504–542 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maye, A., Engel, A.: A discrete computational model of sensorimotor contingencies for object perception and control of behavior. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3810–3815. IEEE (May 2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pfeifer, R., Scheier, C.: Understanding Intelligence. MIT Press (September 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Maye
    • 1
  • Andreas K. Engel
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Neurophysiology and PathophysiologyUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations