Imitation Learning and Response Facilitation in Embodied Agents
Imitation is supposedly a fundamental mechanism for humans to learn new actions and to gain knowledge about another’s intentions. The basis of this behavior seems to be a direct influencing of the motor system by the perceptual system, affording fast, selective enhancement of a motor response already in the repertoire (response facilitation) as well as learning and delayed reproduction of new actions (true imitation). In this paper, we present an approach to attain these capabilities in virtual embodied agents. Building upon a computational motor control model, our approach connects visual representations of observed hand and arm movements to graph-based representations of motor commands. Forward and inverse models are employed to allow for both fast mimicking responses as well as imitation learning.
KeywordsForward Model Inverse Model Motor Command Motor Representation Perceptual Representation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Amit, R., Mataric, M.J.: Learning Movement Sequences from Demonstration. In: Int. Conf. on Development and Learning, pp. 302–306 (2002)Google Scholar
- 4.Blakemore, S.-J., Decety, J.: From the perception of action to the understanding of intention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2, 561–567 (2001)Google Scholar
- 5.Buchsbaum, D., Blumberg, B.: Imitation as a First Step to Social Learning in Synthetic Characters: A Graph-based Approach. In: ACM Symp. on Computer Animation, pp. 9–18 (2005)Google Scholar
- 6.Byrne, R.W.: The thinking ape. In: Evolutionary origins of intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
- 7.Demiris, Y., Hayes, G.: Imitation as a dual-route process featuring predictive and learning components: a biologically-plausible computational model. In: Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. ch.13, MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
- 11.Latash, M.L.: Control of Human Movement. Human Kinetics, Urbana (1993)Google Scholar
- 12.Meltzoff, A.N.: Imitation and other minds: The “Like Me” hypothesis. In: Hurley, S., Chater, N. (eds.) Perspectives on imitation, pp. 55–77. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
- 14.Wallbott, H.G.: Congruence, contagion, and motor-mimicry: Mutualities in nonverbal exchange. In: Markova, I., Graumann, C., Foppa, K. (eds.) Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar