Cogprints

Humanoid Theory Grounding

Prince, Christopher G. and Mislivec, Eric J. (2001) Humanoid Theory Grounding. [Conference Poster]

Full text available as:

[img]Other
92Kb
[img]PDF
67Kb

Abstract

In this paper we consider the importance of using a humanoid physical form for a certain proposed kind of robotics, that of theory grounding. Theory grounding involves grounding the theory skills and knowledge of an embodied artificially intelligent (AI) system by developing theory skills and knowledge from the bottom up. Theory grounding can potentially occur in a variety of domains, and the particular domain considered here is that of language. Language is taken to be another “problem space” in which a system can explore and discover solutions. We argue that because theory grounding necessitates robots experiencing domain information, certain behavioral-form aspects, such as abilities to socially smile, point, follow gaze, and generate manual gestures, are necessary for robots grounding a humanoid theory of language.

Item Type:Conference Poster
Keywords:grounding, models of development, language acqisition, humanoid robotics
Subjects:Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
Computer Science > Machine Vision
Psychology > Developmental Psychology
Linguistics > Computational Linguistics
Philosophy > Philosophy of Language
Philosophy > Philosophy of Mind
ID Code:1926
Deposited By:Prince, Christopher
Deposited On:27 Nov 2001
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:54

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

[1]Mooney, R. J. (1993). Integrating theory and data in category learning. In: G. Nakamura, R. Taraban, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Categorization by Humans and Machines: The Psycholology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 29 (pp. 189-218). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

[2]Mitchell, T. M., Keller, R., & Kedar-Cabelli, S. (1986). Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view. Machine Learning, 1, 47-80.

[3]McIlraith, S. & Amir, E. (2001). Theorem proving with structured theories. Paper presented at the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August 4-10, Seattle, WA.

[4]Prince, C. G. (2001). Theory grounding in embodied artificially intelligent systems. Paper presented at The First International Workshop on Epigenetic Robotics: Modeling Cognitive Development in Robotic Systems, held Sept 17-18, 2001, in Lund, Sweden.

[5]Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335-346.

[6]Gopnik, A. & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[7]Ballard, D. H. (1997). An Introduction to Natural Computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[8]Elman, J. (1998). Generalization, simple recurrent networks, and the emergence of structure. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

[9]Hertz, J., Krogh, A., & Palmer, R. G. (1991). Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation. Lecture Notes Volume I. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Science of Complexity. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.

[10]Kirsh, D. (1991). Today the earwig, tomorrow man? Artificial Intelligence, 47, 161-184.

[11]MacDorman, K. F. (1999). Grounding symbols through sensorimotor integration. Journal of the Robotics Society of Japan, 17, 20-24.

[12]Brooks, R. A. (1999). Cambrian Intelligence: The Early History of the New AI. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[13]Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28, 3-71.

[14]Gallistel, C. R. (2001). The Symbolic Foundations of Conditioned Behavior. Colloquium given at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN on May 11, 2001.

[15]Gallistel, C. R. & Gibbon, J. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289-344.

[16]Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

[17]Flavell, J. H. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 15-23.

[18]Wellman, H. M. (1990). The Child’s Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[19]Rakison, D. H. & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2001). Developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 209-228.

[20]Astington, J. W. & Jenkins, J. M. (1999). A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory of mind development. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1311-1320.

[21]Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10, 447-474.

[22]Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow.

[23]Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A Functional Approach to Language: A Study of Determiners and Reference. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[24]Hollich, G. J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2000). Breaking the language barrier: An emergentist coalition model for the origins of language learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 262, Vol. 65, No. 3.

[25]Butterworth, G. & Jarrett, N. (1991). What minds have in common is space: Spatial mechanisms serving joint visual attention in infancy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 55-72.

[26]Hennon, E. A., Slutzky, C. B., Sootsman, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2001). Reconciling competing theories of word learning: Developmental changes from 10 to 24 months. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, April 2001, Minneapolis, MN.

[27]Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hennon, E. A. (submitted). The birth of words.

[28]Povinelli, D. J. & O'Neill, D. A. (2000). Do chimpanzees use their gestures to instruct each other? In: S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives From Autism, Second Edition (pp. 459-487). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[29]Kako, E. (1999). Elements of syntax in the systems of three language-trained animals. Animal Learning & Behavior, 27, 1-14.

[30]Prince, C. G. (1993). Conjunctive Rule Comprehension in a Bottlenosed Dolphin. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Hawaii Manoa.

[31]Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., Murphy, J., Sevcik, R. A., Brakke, K. E., Williams, S. L., & Rumbaugh, D. M. (1993). Language comprehension in ape and child. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 233, Vol. 58.

[32]Povinelli, D. J. & Prince, C. G. (in preparation). Parental-offspring conflict and the development of social understanding.

[33]Wolff, P. H. (1963). Observations on the early development of smiling. In: B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of Infant Behavior II (pp. 113-138). London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.

[34]Breazeal, C. & Scassellati, B. (2000). Infant-like social interactions between a robot and a human caregiver. Adaptive Behavior, 8, 49-74.

[35]Asada, M., MacDorman, K. F., Ishiguro, H., & Kuniyoshi, Y. (2000). Cognitive developmental robotics as a new paradigm for the design of humanoid robotics. In Humanoids 2000: Proceedings of the First IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, September 7-8, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

[36]Hollich, G. J. (1999). Mechanisms of Word Learning: A Computational Model. Unpublished Dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

[37]Webb, B. (2001). Can robots make good models of biological behaviour? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24.

[38]Williams, J. H. G., Whiten, A., Suddendorf, T., & Perrett, D. I. (in press). Imitation, mirror neurons and autism. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews.

[39]Rodier, P. M. (2000). The early origins of autism. Scientific American, 282, 56-63.

[40]Hickok, G., Bellugi, U. & Klima, E. S. (2001). Sign language in the brain. Scientific American, 284, 58-65.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page