Can infants' sense of agency be found in their behavior? Insights from babybot simulations of the mobile-paradigm

The development of a sense of agency is essential for understanding the causal structure of the world. Previous studies have shown that infants tend to increase the frequency of an action when it is followed by an effect. This was shown, for instance, in the mobile-paradigm, in which infants were in control of moving an overhead mobile by means of a ribbon attached to one of their limbs. These findings have been interpreted as evidence for a sense of agency early in life, as infants were thought to have detected the causal action-movement relation. We argue that solely the increase in action frequency is insufficient as evidence for this claim. Computer simulations are used to demonstrate that systematic, limb-specific increase in movement frequency found in mobile-paradigm studies can be produced by an artificial agent (a 'babybot') implemented with a mechanism that does not represent cause-effect relations at all. Given that a sense of agency requires representing one's actions as the cause of the effect, a behavior that is reproduced with this non-representational babybot can be argued to be, in itself, insufficient as evidence for a sense of agency. However, a behavioral pattern that to date has received little attention in the context of sense of agency, namely an additional increase in movement frequency after the action-effect relation is discontinued, is not produced by the babybot. Future research could benefit from focusing on patterns whose production cannot be reproduced by our babybot as these may require the capacity for causal learning.

[1]  Ben Kenward,et al.  10-Month-Olds Visually Anticipate an Outcome Contingent on Their Own Action. , 2010, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[2]  J. A. Scott Kelso,et al.  On the Self-Organizing Origins of Agency , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  C. Rovee-Collier,et al.  Reactivation of infant memory. , 1980, Science.

[4]  P. Rochat,et al.  Perceived self in infancy , 2000 .

[5]  S. Sloman,et al.  Learning Causal Structure , 2019, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

[6]  J. Watson Smiling, cooing, and "the game." , 1972 .

[7]  B. Morrongiello,et al.  Topographical response differentiation and reversal in 3-month-old infants , 1978 .

[8]  H. Bekkering,et al.  What do mirror neurons mirror? , 2011 .

[9]  Maria Otworowska,et al.  Causal learning in the Crib: A predictive processing formalization and babybot simulation , 2016, 2016 Joint IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EpiRob).

[10]  Lorijn Zaadnoordijk,et al.  The developing sense of agency: Implications from cognitive phenomenology , 2015, 2015 Joint IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EpiRob).

[11]  C. K. Rovee,et al.  Conjugate reinforcement of infant exploratory behavior. , 1969, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[12]  C. Glymour,et al.  Preschool children learn about causal structure from conditional interventions. , 2007, Developmental science.

[13]  H. Bekkering,et al.  To be precise, the details don’t matter: On predictive processing, precision, and level of detail of predictions , 2017, Brain and Cognition.

[14]  Marco Wiering,et al.  Reinforcement Learning and Markov Decision Processes , 2012, Reinforcement Learning.

[15]  C. Rovee-Collier,et al.  A dissociation between recognition and reactivation: The renewal effect at 3 months of age. , 2016, Developmental psychobiology.

[16]  J. Watson,et al.  Early socio–emotional development: Contingency perception and the social-biofeedback model. , 1999 .

[17]  Michele A Lobo,et al.  The performance of infants born preterm and full-term in the mobile paradigm: learning and memory. , 2004, Physical therapy.

[18]  A. Decasper,et al.  Contingencies of stimulation: Effects on learning and emotion in neonates , 1981 .

[19]  Geoffrey Bird,et al.  Self–other control processes in social cognition: from imitation to empathy , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  Michele A Lobo,et al.  The relative kicking frequency of infants born full-term and preterm during learning and short-term and long-term memory periods of the mobile paradigm. , 2005, Physical therapy.

[21]  P. Rochat,et al.  Emerging self‐exploration by 2‐month‐old infants , 1999 .

[22]  Takashi Omori,et al.  The image-scratch paradigm: a new paradigm for evaluating infants' motivated gaze control , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[23]  Gentaro Taga,et al.  Flexibility in infant actions during arm- and leg-based learning in a mobile paradigm. , 2009, Infant behavior & development.

[24]  Yael Niv,et al.  Operant Conditioning , 1971 .

[25]  H. Hayne,et al.  Contextual control of memory retrieval in infancy: Evidence for associative priming , 1995 .

[26]  Gentaro Taga,et al.  Initial-state dependency of learning in young infants. , 2011, Human movement science.

[27]  Gentaro Taga,et al.  General to specific development of movement patterns and memory for contingency between actions and events in young infants. , 2006, Infant behavior & development.

[28]  M. Lewis,et al.  Violation of expectancy and frustration in early infancy , 1990 .

[29]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Inferring causal networks from observations and interventions , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  Angela R Laird,et al.  Functional connectivity of brain regions for self- and other-evaluation in children, adolescents and adults with autism. , 2016, Developmental science.

[31]  M. Jeannerod The mechanism of self-recognition in humans , 2003, Behavioural Brain Research.

[32]  K. Vogeley,et al.  The “sense of agency” and its underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms , 2008, Consciousness and Cognition.