Abstract Structural Representations of Goal-Directed Behavior

Linguistic theory holds that the structure of a sentence can be described in abstract syntactic terms, independent of the specific words the sentence contains. Nonlinguistic behavior, including goal-directed action, is also theorized to have an underlying structural, or “syntactic,” organization. We propose that purposive action sequences are represented cognitively in terms of a means-ends parse, which is a formal specification of how actions fit together to accomplish desired outcomes. To test this theory, we leveraged the phenomenon of structural priming in two experiments. As predicted, participants read sentences describing action sequences faster when these sentences were presented amid other sentences sharing the same parse. Results from a second experiment indicate that the underlying representations relevant to observed action sequences are not strictly tied to language processing. Our results suggest that the structure of goal-directed behavior may be represented abstractly, independently of specific actions and goals, just as linguistic syntax is thought to stand independent of other levels of representation.

[1]  K. Lashley The problem of serial order in behavior , 1951 .

[2]  C. Clifton,et al.  Parallel structure: A source of facilitation in sentence comprehension , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[3]  J. C. Fentress,et al.  Natural syntax rules control action sequence of rats , 1987, Behavioural Brain Research.

[4]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[5]  K. Bock,et al.  Framing sentences , 1990, Cognition.

[6]  Michael W. Montgomery,et al.  The quantitative description of action disorganisation after brain damage: a case study , 1991 .

[7]  B. McElree,et al.  Syntactic and Thematic Processing in Sentence Comprehension: Evidence for a Temporal Dissociation , 1995 .

[8]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[9]  John Lyons,et al.  语义学引论 = Linguistic Semantics , 2000 .

[10]  Jeffrey M. Zacks,et al.  Event structure in perception and conception. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  Adele E. Goldberg Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[12]  Jennifer Wiley,et al.  Goal Plans of Action and Inferences During Comprehension of Narratives , 2005 .

[13]  Jessica A. Sommerville,et al.  Infants' Sensitivity to the Causal Features of Means‐End Support Sequences in Action and Perception , 2005 .

[14]  A. Whiten,et al.  Imitation of hierarchical action structure by young children. , 2006, Developmental science.

[15]  G. Csibra,et al.  'Obsessed with goals': functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humans. , 2007, Acta psychologica.

[16]  S. Goldin-Meadow,et al.  The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  M. Botvinick Hierarchical models of behavior and prefrontal function , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  Pragmatics of Human Action , 2008 .

[19]  M. Pickering,et al.  Structural priming: a critical review. , 2008, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  Matthew J Traxler,et al.  Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  Patricia J. Bauer Event Memory in Infancy and Early Childhood , 2008 .

[22]  Chris L. Baker,et al.  Action understanding as inverse planning , 2009, Cognition.