Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×

Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T14:45:07.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Simulation theory of understanding others: a robotics perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2009

By
Yiannis Demiris  and
Matthew Johnson
Edited by
Chrystopher L. Nehaniv  and
Kerstin Dautenhahn
Yiannis Demiris
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK
Matthew Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, London, UK
Chrystopher L. Nehaniv
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Kerstin Dautenhahn
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Simulation theory

According to the simulation theory, ‘human beings are able to use the resources of their own minds to simulate the psychological etiology of the behaviour of others’, typically by making decisions within a ‘pretend context’ (Gordon, 1999). During observation of another agent's behaviour, the execution apparatus of the observer is taken ‘off-line’ and is used as a manipulable model of the observed behaviour.

From a roboticist's point of view, the fundamental characteristics of the simulation theory are:

  • Utilization of the same computational systems for a dual purpose; both behaviour generation as well as recognition.

  • Taking systems off-line (suspending their normal input/output) which necessitates a redirection and suppression of input (feeding ‘pretend states’ following a perspective taking process, suppressing the current ones that are coming from the visual sensors while this is performed) and output from/to the system to achieve this dual use.

Simulation theory is often set as a rival to the ‘theory-theory’, where a separate theoretical reasoning system is used; the observer perceives and reasons about the observed behaviour not by simulating it, but by utilizing a set of causal laws about behaviours.

It is important to note that in the experiments we describe here, ‘understanding’ the demonstrated behaviour equates to inferring its goal in terms of sensorimotor states, and does not imply inference of the emotional, motivational and intentional components of mental states.

Type
Chapter
Information
Imitation and Social Learning in Robots, Humans and Animals
Behavioural, Social and Communicative Dimensions
 , pp. 89 - 102
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abravanel, E. (1991). Does immediate imitation influence long-term memory for observed actions?Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 235–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alissandrakis, A., Nehaniv, C. L. and Dautenhahn, K. (2002). Imitating with ALICE: learning to imitate corresponding actions across dissimilar embodiments. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 32 (4), 482–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentivegna, D. and Atkeson, C. (2002). A framework for learning from observation using primitives. Presented at the Symposium of Robocup 2002, Fukuoka, Japan.
Brass, M., Derrfuss, J., Cramon, G. M. and Cramon, D. Y. (2003). Imitative response tendencies in patients with frontal brain lesions. Neuropsychology, 17(2), 265–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brass, M., Zysset, S. and Cramon, D. (2001). The inhibition of imitative response tendencies. NeuroImage, 14, 1416–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buccino, G., Binkofski, F. and Riggio, L. (2004). The mirror neuron system and action recognition. Brain and Language, 89, 370–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renzi, E., Cavalleri, F. and Facchini, S. (1996). Imitation and utilisation behaviour. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 61, 396–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decety, J. (1996). Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate?Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 87–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decety, J., Grezes, J., Costes, N., Perani, D., Jeannerod, M., Procyk, E., Grassi, F. and Fazio, F. (1997). Brain activity during observation of actions: influence of action content and subject's strategy. Brain, 120, 1763–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decety, J., Jeannerod, M., Germain, M. and Pastene, J. (1991). Vegetative response during imagined movement is proportional to mental effort. Behavioural Brain Research, 42, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demiris, Y. and Hayes, G. (2002). Imitation as a dual route process featuring predictive and learning components: a biologically plausible computational model. In Dautenhahn, K. and Nehaniv, C. (eds.), Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Demiris, Y. and Johnson, M. (2003). Distributed, prediction perception of actions: a biologically inspired architecture for imitation and learning. Connection Science, 15 (4), 231–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadiga, L. and Craighero, L. (2003). New insights on sensorimotor integration: from hand action to speech perception. Brain and Cognition, 53, 514–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G. and Rizzolatti, G. (1995). Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73 (6), 2608–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogassi, L. and Gallese, V. (2002). The neural correlates of action understanding. In Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 13–36.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L. and Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallese, V. and Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2 (12), 493–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, R. (1999). Simulation vs theory-theory. In Wilson, R. A. and Keil, F. (eds.), The MIT Encyclopaedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 765–6.Google Scholar
Haruno, M., Wolpert, D. M. and Kawato, M. (2001). Mosaic model for sen-sorimotor learning and control. Neural Computation, 13, 2201–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. and Demiris, Y. (2004). Abstraction in recognition to solve the correspondence problem for robot imitation. In Proceedings of TAROS-04, University of Essex, UK, 63–70.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. and Demiris, Y. (2005). Hierarchies of coupled inverse and forward models for abstraction in robot action planning, recognition and imitation. In Proceedings of the AISB 2005 Symposium on Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. AISB.Google Scholar
Lhermitte, F., Pillon, B. and Serdaru, M. (1986). Human autonomy and the frontal lobes – Part I: imitation and utilization behavior: a neuropsychological study of 75 patients. Annals of Neurology, 19 (4), 326–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matari, M., Williamson, M., Demiris, J. and Mohan, A. (1998). Behaviour-based primitives for articulated control. In From Animals to Animats 5, Zurich, Switzerland: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. and Decety, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: a rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London B, 358, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nehaniv, C. and Dautenhahn, K. (2002). The correspondence problem. In Dautenhahn, K. and Nehaniv, C. (eds.), Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Chapter 2, pages 41–61.Google Scholar
Ramnanin, N. and Miall, R. C. (2004). A system in the human brain for predicting the actions of others. Nature Neuroscience, 7 (1), 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V. and Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L. and Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 661–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwoebel, J., Boronat, C. B. and Coslett, H. B. (2002). The man who executed imagined movements: evidence for dissociable components of the body schema. Brain and cognition, 50, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogt, S. (1995). On relations between perceiving, imagining and performing in the learning of cyclical movement sequences. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 191–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogt, S. (1996). Imagery and perception-action mediation in imitative actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Y. and Morgan, W. P. (1992). The effect of imagery perspectives on the psychophysical responses to imagined exercise. Behaviour Brain Research, 52, 167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolpert, D., Ghahramani, Z. and Jordan, M. (1995). An internal model for sensorimotor integration. Science, 269, 1880–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolpert, D. M. and Kawato, M. (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks, 11, 1317–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolpert, D. M., Miall, R. C. and Kawato, M. (1998). Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2 (9), 338–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wuyam, B., Moosavi, S., Decety, J., Adams, L., Lansing, R. and Guz, A. (1995). Imagination of dynamic exercise produced ventilatory responses which were more apparent in competitive sportsmen. Journal of Physiology, 482, 713–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmer, H. D. and Engelkamp, J. (1996). Routes to actions and their efficacy for remembering. Memory, 4 (1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×