1
|
Ellery A. Tutorial Review of Bio-Inspired Approaches to Robotic Manipulation for Space Debris Salvage. Biomimetics (Basel) 2020; 5:E19. [PMID: 32408615 PMCID: PMC7345424 DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics5020019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2020] [Revised: 04/30/2020] [Accepted: 05/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
We present a comprehensive tutorial review that explores the application of bio-inspired approaches to robot control systems for grappling and manipulating a wide range of space debris targets. Current robot manipulator control systems exploit limited techniques which can be supplemented by additional bio-inspired methods to provide a robust suite of robot manipulation technologies. In doing so, we review bio-inspired control methods because this will be the key to enabling such capabilities. In particular, force feedback control may be supplemented with predictive forward models and software emulation of viscoelastic preflexive joint behaviour. This models human manipulation capabilities as implemented by the cerebellum and muscles/joints respectively. In effect, we are proposing a three-level control strategy based on biomimetic forward models for predictive estimation, traditional feedback control and biomimetic muscle-like preflexes. We place emphasis on bio-inspired forward modelling suggesting that all roads lead to this solution for robust and adaptive manipulator control. This promises robust and adaptive manipulation for complex tasks in salvaging space debris.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex Ellery
- Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa ON K1S 5B6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Maguire P, Moser P, Maguire R, Keane MT. Why the Conjunction Effect Is Rarely a Fallacy: How Learning Influences Uncertainty and the Conjunction Rule. Front Psychol 2018; 9:1011. [PMID: 30022958 PMCID: PMC6039830 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2018] [Accepted: 05/31/2018] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
In this article we explore the relationship between learning and the conjunction fallacy. The interpretation of the conjunction effect as a fallacy assumes that all observers share the same knowledge, and that nobody has access to privileged information. Such situations are actually quite rare in everyday life. Building on an existing model of surprise, we prove formally that in the more typical scenarios, where observers are alert to the possibility of learning from event outcomes, the conjunction rule does not apply. Scenarios which have been engineered to produce the so-called conjunction “fallacy” (e.g., Tverksy and Kahneman, 1983) often imply subjective uncertainty and hence the possibility of learning. In Experiment 1 we demonstrate that when these scenarios are rephrased so as to eliminate subjective uncertainty, the effect is mitigated. In Experiment 2 we demonstrate that when subjective uncertainty is reduced by allowing participants to learn about the mechanism behind a conjunction-inducing scenario, the conjunction effect again diminishes. We conclude that the conjunction effect arises due to the unnaturalness of interpreting verbal descriptions in terms of a situation in which all observers share the same knowledge. Instead, when people hear descriptions of real world situations, they are likely to assume that learning is possible, and that subjective rather than objective uncertainty applies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Phil Maguire
- Department of Computer Science, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland
- *Correspondence: Phil Maguire
| | - Philippe Moser
- Department of Computer Science, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland
| | - Rebecca Maguire
- Department of Psychology, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Ireland
| | - Mark T. Keane
- School of Computer Science and Informatics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Nahinsky ID. Parallel Interactive Processing as a Way to Understand Complex Information Processing: The Conjunction Fallacy and Other Examples. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 2018; 130:201-222. [PMID: 29461716 DOI: 10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.2.0201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Parallel interactive processing (PIP) represents an approach in which specific context generates interactive relationships between general attributes. This article summarizes previous research that demonstrates how such relationships influence inference making in categorization. This is followed by evidence that the approach can be extended to other areas of cognition, including probability judgments. PIP was successful in fitting data that revealed the prevalence of the conjunction fallacy as well as other probability estimation data. PIP provided better fits overall than the signed summation model and the configural weighted average model. The quantum probability model provided good fits for the conjunction fallacy data but not for other probability judgments.
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
A major topic within human learning, the field of contingency judgement, began to emerge about 25 years ago following publication of an article on depressive realism by Alloy and Abramson (1979). Subsequently, associationism has been the dominant theoretical framework for understanding contingency learning but this has been challenged in recent years by an alternative cognitive or inferential approach. This article outlines the key conceptual differences between these approaches and summarizes some of the main methods that have been employed to distinguish between them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David R Shanks
- Department of Psychology, University College London. London. UK.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
von Sydow M. Towards a pattern-based logic of probability judgements and logical inclusion “fallacies”. THINKING & REASONING 2016. [DOI: 10.1080/13546783.2016.1140678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
|
6
|
Corpus-based estimates of word association predict biases in judgment of word co-occurrence likelihood. Cogn Psychol 2014; 74:66-83. [PMID: 25151368 DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2013] [Revised: 07/16/2014] [Accepted: 07/17/2014] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
This paper draws a connection between statistical word association measures used in linguistics and confirmation measures from epistemology. Having theoretically established the connection, we replicate, in the new context of the judgments of word co-occurrence, an intriguing finding from the psychology of reasoning, namely that confirmation values affect intuitions about likelihood. We show that the effect, despite being based in this case on very subtle statistical insights about thousands of words, is stable across three different experimental settings. Our theoretical and empirical results suggest that factors affecting traditional reasoning tasks are also at play when linguistic knowledge is probed, and they provide further evidence for the importance of confirmation in a new domain.
Collapse
|
7
|
Mitchell CJ, Griffiths O, More P, Lovibond PF. Contingency Bias in Probability Judgement May Arise from Ambiguity regarding Additional Causes. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) 2013; 66:1675-86. [DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.752854] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
In laboratory contingency learning tasks, people usually give accurate estimates of the degree of contingency between a cue and an outcome. However, if they are asked to estimate the probability of the outcome in the presence of the cue, they tend to be biased by the probability of the outcome in the absence of the cue. This bias is often attributed to an automatic contingency detection mechanism, which is said to act via an excitatory associative link to activate the outcome representation at the time of testing. We conducted 3 experiments to test alternative accounts of contingency bias. Participants were exposed to the same outcome probability in the presence of the cue, but different outcome probabilities in the absence of the cue. Phrasing the test question in terms of frequency rather than probability and clarifying the test instructions reduced but did not eliminate contingency bias. However, removal of ambiguity regarding the presence of additional causes during the test phase did eliminate contingency bias. We conclude that contingency bias may be due to ambiguity in the test question, and therefore it does not require postulation of a separate associative link-based mechanism.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris J. Mitchell
- School of Psychology, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK
- School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Oren Griffiths
- School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Pranjal More
- School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| | - Peter F. Lovibond
- School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Tentori K, Crupi V. On the conjunction fallacy and the meaning of and, yet again: a reply to Hertwig, Benz, and Krauss (2008). Cognition 2011; 122:123-34. [PMID: 22079517 DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2010] [Revised: 09/09/2011] [Accepted: 09/14/2011] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
In this paper we question the theoretical tenability of Hertwig, Benz, and Krauss's (2008) (HBK) argument that responses commonly taken as manifestations of the conjunction fallacy should be instead considered as reflecting "reasonable pragmatic and semantic inferences" because the meaning of and does not always coincide with that of the logical operator ∧. We also question the relevance of the experimental evidence that HBK provide in support of their argument as well as their account of the pertinent literature. Finally, we report two novel experiments in which we employed HBK's procedure to control for the interpretation of and. The results obtained overtly contradict HBK's data and claims. We conclude with a discussion on the alleged feebleness of the conjunction fallacy, and suggest directions that future research on this topic might pursue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katya Tentori
- University of Trento, corso Bettini 31, 38068 Rovereto, Italy.
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Broadening the study of inductive reasoning: confirmation judgments with uncertain evidence. Mem Cognit 2011; 38:941-50. [PMID: 20921106 DOI: 10.3758/mc.38.7.941] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Although evidence in real life is often uncertain, the psychology of inductive reasoning has, so far, been confined to certain evidence. The present study extends previous research by investigating whether people properly estimate the impact of uncertain evidence on a given hypothesis. Two experiments are reported, in which the uncertainty of evidence is explicitly (by means of numerical values) versus implicitly (by means of ambiguous pictures) manipulated. The results show that people's judgments are highly correlated with those predicted by normatively sound Bayesian measures of impact. This sensitivity to the degree of evidential uncertainty supports the centrality of inductive reasoning in cognition and opens the path to the study of this issue in more naturalistic settings.
Collapse
|
10
|
Abstract
Since the very earliest experimental investigations of learning, tension has existed between association-based and cognitive theories. Associationism accounts for the phenomena of both conditioning and "higher" forms of learning via concepts such as excitation, inhibition, and reinforcement, whereas cognitive theories assume that learning depends on hypothesis testing, cognitive models, and propositional reasoning. Cognitive theories have received considerable impetus in regard to both human and animal learning from recent research suggesting that the key illustration of cue selection in learning, blocking, often arises from inferential reasoning. At the same time, a dichotomous view that separates noncognitive, unconscious (implicit) learning from cognitive, conscious (explicit) learning has gained favor. This review selectively describes key findings from this research, evaluates evidence for and against associative and cognitive explanatory constructs, and critically examines both the dichotomous view of learning as well as the claim that learning can occur unconsciously.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David R Shanks
- Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London WC1H 0AP United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Abstract
AbstractThe past 50 years have seen an accumulation of evidence suggesting that associative learning depends on high-level cognitive processes that give rise to propositional knowledge. Yet, many learning theorists maintain a belief in a learning mechanism in which links between mental representations are formed automatically. We characterize and highlight the differences between the propositional and link approaches, and review the relevant empirical evidence. We conclude that learning is the consequence of propositional reasoning processes that cooperate with the unconscious processes involved in memory retrieval and perception. We argue that this new conceptual framework allows many of the important recent advances in associative learning research to be retained, but recast in a model that provides a firmer foundation for both immediate application and future research.
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
AbstractThe extent to which human learning should be thought of in terms of elementary, automatic versus controlled, cognitive processes is unresolved after nearly a century of often fierce debate. Mitchell et al. provide a persuasive review of evidence against automatic, unconscious links. Indeed, unconscious processes seem to play a negligible role in any form of learning, not just in Pavlovian conditioning. But a modern connectionist framework, in which “cognitive” phenomena are emergent properties, is likely to offer a fuller account of human learning than the propositional framework Mitchell et al. propose.
Collapse
|
13
|
Nilsson H. Exploring the conjunction fallacy within a category learning framework. JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DECISION MAKING 2008. [DOI: 10.1002/bdm.615] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|
14
|
Abstract
Consider the task of predicting which soccer team will win the next World Cup. The bookmakers may judge Brazil to be the team most likely to win, but also judge it most likely that a European rather than a Latin American team will win. This is an example of a non-aligned hierarchy structure: the most probable event at the subordinate level (Brazil wins) appears to be inconsistent with the most probable event at the superordinate level (a European team wins). In this paper we exploit such structures to investigate how people make predictions based on uncertain hierarchical knowledge. We distinguish between aligned and non-aligned environments, and conjecture that people assume alignment. Participants were exposed to a non-aligned training set in which the most probable superordinate category predicted one outcome, whereas the most probable subordinate category predicted a different outcome. In the test phase participants allowed their initial probability judgments about category membership to shift their final ratings of the probability of the outcome, even though all judgments were made on the basis of the same statistical data. In effect people were primed to focus on the most likely path in an inference tree, and neglect alternative paths. These results highlight the importance of the level at which statistical data are represented, and suggest that when faced with hierarchical inference problems people adopt a simplifying heuristic that assumes alignment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David A Lagnado
- Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, WC1E 6BT London, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Cobos PL, Almaraz J, García-Madruga JA. An associative framework for probability judgement: An application to biases. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2003. [DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.1.80] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|