Schema-based learning of adaptable and flexible prey- catching in anurans II. Learning after lesioning

The previous companion paper describes the initial (seed) schema architecture that gives rise to the observed prey-catching behavior. In this second paper in the series we describe the fundamental adaptive processes required during learning after lesioning. Following bilateral transections of the hypoglossal nerve, anurans lunge toward mealworms with no accompanying tongue or jaw movement. Nevertheless anurans with permanent hypoglossal transections eventually learn to catch their prey by first learning to open their mouth again and then lunging their body further and increasing their head angle.In this paper we present a new learning framework, called schema-based learning (SBL). SBL emphasizes the importance of the current existent structure (schemas), that defines a functioning system, for the incremental and autonomous construction of ever more complex structure to achieve ever more complex levels of functioning. We may rephrase this statement into the language of Schema Theory (Arbib 1992, for a comprehensive review) as the learning of new schemas based on the stock of current schemas. SBL emphasizes a fundamental principle of organization called coherence maximization, that deals with the maximization of congruence between the results of an interaction (external or internal) and the expectations generated for that interaction. A central hypothesis consists of the existence of a hierarchy of predictive internal models (predictive schemas) all over the control center-brain-of the agent. Hence, we will include predictive models in the perceptual, sensorimotor, and motor components of the autonomous agent architecture. We will then show that predictive models are fundamental for structural learning. In particular we will show how a system can learn a new structural component (augment the overall network topology) after being lesioned in order to recover (or even improve) its original functionality. Learning after lesioning is a special case of structural learning but clearly shows that solutions cannot be known/hardwired a priori since it cannot be known, in advance, which substructure is going to break down.

[1]  Ferdinando A Mussa-Ivaldi,et al.  Modular features of motor control and learning , 1999, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[2]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Schema-Based Learning: Biologically Inspired Principles of Dynamic Organization , 1997, IWANN.

[3]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Schema-based learning: towards a theory of organization for biologically-inspired autonomous agents , 1997, AGENTS '97.

[4]  Jane E. Clark,et al.  The use of somatosensory information during the acquisition of independent upright stance , 1999 .

[5]  J. Ewert,et al.  Forebrain and midbrain structures involved in prey-catching behaviour of toads: stimulus-response mediating circuits and their modulating loops. , 1999, European journal of morphology.

[6]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Learning to Detour , 1995, Adapt. Behav..

[7]  Ananda Weerasuriya Motor pattern generators in anuran prey capture , 1991 .

[8]  Paul Grobstein,et al.  Directed movement in the frog: motor choice, spatial representation, free will? , 1992 .

[9]  V. Han,et al.  Synaptic plasticity in a cerebellum-like structure depends on temporal order , 1997, Nature.

[10]  A. Borst Seeing smells: imaging olfactory learning in bees , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  C. C. A. M. Gielen,et al.  Motor programmes for goal-directed movements are continuously adjusted according to changes in target location , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  J. Antonio Carranza,et al.  Motor development and learning in infancy , 2007 .

[13]  J. Nazuno Haykin, Simon. Neural networks: A comprehensive foundation, Prentice Hall, Inc. Segunda Edición, 1999 , 2000 .

[14]  James T. Kwok,et al.  Constructive algorithms for structure learning in feedforward neural networks for regression problems , 1997, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[15]  M. Arbib Levels of modeling of mechanisms of visually guided behavior , 1987, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  A. Collazo,et al.  EVOLUTIONARY CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EARLY DEVELOPMENT AND LIFE HISTORY IN PLETHODONTID SALAMANDERS AND TELEOST FISHES , 1996 .

[17]  Ewert Jp,et al.  Neural correlates of key stimulus and releasing mechanism : a case study and two concepts , 1997 .

[18]  K. J. Craik,et al.  The nature of explanation , 1944 .

[19]  M. Kositsky,et al.  Motor Learning and Skill Acquisition by Sequences of Elementary Actions , 1998 .

[20]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Forward Models: Supervised Learning with a Distal Teacher , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  D M Merfeld,et al.  Humans use internal models to estimate gravity and linear acceleration , 1999, Nature.

[22]  Roland E. Suri,et al.  Temporal Difference Model Reproduces Anticipatory Neural Activity , 2001, Neural Computation.

[23]  Stefan C. Kremer,et al.  Spatiotemporal Connectionist Networks: A Taxonomy and Review , 2001, Neural Computation.

[24]  M. Arbib,et al.  Motivational Learning of Spatial Behavior , 1977 .

[25]  J. Kien,et al.  Neurobiology of Motor Programme Selection: New Approaches to the Study of Behavioural Choice , 1992 .

[26]  Stuart C. Shapiro,et al.  Encyclopedia of artificial intelligence, vols. 1 and 2 (2nd ed.) , 1992 .

[27]  Simon Haykin,et al.  Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation , 1998 .

[28]  V. Han,et al.  Synaptic plasticity in the mormyrid electrosensory lobe. , 1999, The Journal of experimental biology.

[29]  I. W. Boyd,et al.  Laser annealing for semiconductor devices , 1980, Nature.

[30]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Schema theory , 1998 .

[31]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  Affordances. Motivations, and the World Graph Theory , 1998, Adapt. Behav..

[32]  H. T. A. Whiting,et al.  The efficient learner , 2001, Biological Cybernetics.

[33]  E Bizzi,et al.  Motor learning through the combination of primitives. , 2000, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[34]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  The Metaphorical Brains , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[35]  Manfred Morari,et al.  Model predictive control: Theory and practice - A survey , 1989, Autom..

[36]  R. E. Kalman,et al.  A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems , 2002 .

[37]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  An internal model for sensorimotor integration. , 1995, Science.

[38]  Fernando J. Corbacho Schema-Based Learning , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[39]  K. Nishikawa,et al.  The roles of visual and proprioceptive information during motor program choice in frogs , 1996, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[40]  Michael A. Arbib,et al.  A formal model of computation for sensory-based robotics , 1989, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[41]  J. Ewert,et al.  Neural modulation of visuomotor functions underlying prey-catching behaviour in anurans: perception, attention, motor performance, learning. , 2001, Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part A, Molecular & integrative physiology.

[42]  Ananda Weerasuriya,et al.  In Search of the Motor Pattern Generator for Snapping in Toads , 1989 .

[43]  C. Anderson,et al.  A prey-type dependent hypoglossal feedback system in the frog Rana pipiens. , 1993, Brain, behavior and evolution.