Evolutionary robotics techniques used to model information and control of visually guided braking

This paper utilizes evolutionary robotics techniques as a hypothesis generator to explore optical variables and control strategies that could be used to solve a driving-like braking task. Given such a task, humans exhibit two different braking behaviors: continuously regulated braking and impulsive braking. Based on an oft-used experimental task in human perception/action research, a series of evolutionary robotics simulations were developed to explore the space of possible braking strategies by examining how braking strategies change as the optical information is manipulated. Our results can be summarized as follows: (1) behaviors similar to human behavior were observed only when the constraints were selected correctly; (2) the optical variables τ and proportional rate yielded significantly better braking performance; (3) two different classes of impulsive braking behaviors were observed, including one not reported in previous studies: discrete impulsive braking and oscillatory impulsive braking; (4) the optical variable τ is used to initiate and terminate braking; (5) the evolved model agents use a proportional rate control strategy to regulate braking continuously. We argue that combining psychological experiments and evolutionary robotics simulations is a promising research methodology that is useful for testing existing hypotheses and generating new ones.

[1]  J. Piaget.  The construction of reality in the child , 1954 .

[2]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[3]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[4]  T. Flash,et al.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[5]  E. Reed.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[6]  Yuichi Nakamura,et al.  Approximation of dynamical systems by continuous time recurrent neural networks , 1993, Neural Networks.

[7]  Geoffrey P. Bingham,et al.  The Role of Perception in Timing: Feedback Control in Motor Programming and Task Dynamics , 1995 .

[8]  Randall D. Beer,et al.  On the Dynamics of Small Continuous-Time Recurrent Neural Networks , 1995, Adapt. Behav..

[9]  W H Warren,et al.  Visual control of braking: a test of the tau hypothesis. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Masahiro Kimura,et al.  Learning dynamical systems by recurrent neural networks from orbits , 1998, Neural Networks.

[11]  Jeffrey L. Krichmar,et al.  Evolutionary robotics: The biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing machines , 2001, Complex..

[12]  Petr Sosík,et al.  Advances in Artificial Life , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[13]  Randall D. Beer,et al.  The Dynamics of Active Categorical Perception in an Evolved Model Agent , 2003, Adapt. Behav..

[14]  Wolfgang Banzhaf,et al.  Advances in Artificial Life , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[15]  Isaac Meilijson,et al.  Controlled analysis of neurocontrollers with informational lesioning , 2003, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[16]  Isaac Meilijson,et al.  Localization of Function via Lesion Analysis , 2003, Neural Computation.

[17]  W. H. Warren.  The dynamics of perception and action. , 2006, Psychological review.

[18]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Hebbian Learning using Fixed Weight Evolved Dynamical `Neural' Networks , 2007, 2007 IEEE Symposium on Artificial Life.

[19]  Hiroyuki Iizuka,et al.  Minimal Agency Detection of Embodied Agents , 2007, ECAL.

[20]  Randall D. Beer,et al.  The Dynamics of Associative Learning in Evolved Model Circuits , 2007, Adapt. Behav..

[21]  Ezequiel A. Di Paolo,et al.  New Models for Old Questions: Evolutionary Robotics and the 'A Not B' Error , 2007, ECAL.

[22]  M. Rohde,et al.  Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing , 2008 .

[23]  R. Beer,et al.  An embodied dynamical approach to relational categorization , 2008 .

[24]  R. Ward,et al.  Selective attention and control of action: comparative psychology of an artificial, evolved agent and people. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  Inman Harvey,et al.  Associative Learning on a Continuum in Evolved Dynamical Neural Networks , 2008, Adapt. Behav..

[26]  M. Auvray,et al.  Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment , 2009 .

[27]  G. Bingham,et al.  A solution to the online guidance problem for targeted reaches: proportional rate control using relative disparity τ , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[28]  G. Bingham,et al.  Locomoting-to-reach: information variables and control strategies for nested actions , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[29]  Randall D. Beer,et al.  Connecting a Connectome to Behavior: An Ensemble of Neuroanatomical Models of C. elegans Klinotaxis , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[30]  R. Beer.  The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence: Dynamical systems and embedded cognition , 2014 .

[31]  W. Ramsey,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence , 2014 .