Limits...
The situated HKB model: how sensorimotor spatial coupling can alter oscillatory brain dynamics.

Aguilera M, Bedia MG, Santos BA, Barandiaran XE - Front Comput Neurosci (2013)

Bottom Line: These results are compared with two different models: a decoupled HKB with no sensory input and a passively-coupled HKB that is also decoupled but receives a structured input generated by a situated agent.We also present the notion of neurodynamic signature as the dynamic pattern that correlates with a specific behavior and we show how only a situated agent can display this signature compared to an agent that simply receives the exact same sensory input.Finally, we discuss the limitations and possible generalization of our model to contemporary neuroscience and philosophy of mind.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Computer Science and Engineering Systems, University of Zaragoza Zaragoza, Spain.

ABSTRACT
Despite the increase of both dynamic and embodied/situated approaches in cognitive science, there is still little research on how coordination dynamics under a closed sensorimotor loop might induce qualitatively different patterns of neural oscillations compared to those found in isolated systems. We take as a departure point the Haken-Kelso-Bunz (HKB) model, a generic model for dynamic coordination between two oscillatory components, which has proven useful for a vast range of applications in cognitive science and whose dynamical properties are well understood. In order to explore the properties of this model under closed sensorimotor conditions we present what we call the situated HKB model: a robotic model that performs a gradient climbing task and whose "brain" is modeled by the HKB equation. We solve the differential equations that define the agent-environment coupling for increasing values of the agent's sensitivity (sensor gain), finding different behavioral strategies. These results are compared with two different models: a decoupled HKB with no sensory input and a passively-coupled HKB that is also decoupled but receives a structured input generated by a situated agent. We can precisely quantify and qualitatively describe how the properties of the system, when studied in coupled conditions, radically change in a manner that cannot be deduced from the decoupled HKB models alone. We also present the notion of neurodynamic signature as the dynamic pattern that correlates with a specific behavior and we show how only a situated agent can display this signature compared to an agent that simply receives the exact same sensory input. To our knowledge, this is the first analytical solution of the HKB equation in a sensorimotor loop and qualitative and quantitative analytic comparison of spatially coupled vs. decoupled oscillatory controllers. Finally, we discuss the limitations and possible generalization of our model to contemporary neuroscience and philosophy of mind.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Signature of the situated HKB with s = 2.5 and the corresponding passively-coupled HKB. It represents the density distribution of the effective phase space of the HKB equation when it is coupled with an environment, showing the difference between situated and passive coupling.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3750630&req=5

Figure 10: Signature of the situated HKB with s = 2.5 and the corresponding passively-coupled HKB. It represents the density distribution of the effective phase space of the HKB equation when it is coupled with an environment, showing the difference between situated and passive coupling.

Mentions: What we see (Figure 10) is that the dynamical signature of the system changes severely when the system is situated in an environment. Whereas the passively-coupled HKB displays the shape of the original HKB phase space with a “blurring” effect created by the addition of an structured input (we can see it in Figure 10 as a “thick” line shaped with the form of the HKB original phase space), in the situated system the structure of the dynamical signature no longer resembles the original HKB phase space. The situated system has modulated or re-shaped its state space into a specific pattern through sensorimotor coordination.


The situated HKB model: how sensorimotor spatial coupling can alter oscillatory brain dynamics.

Aguilera M, Bedia MG, Santos BA, Barandiaran XE - Front Comput Neurosci (2013)

Signature of the situated HKB with s = 2.5 and the corresponding passively-coupled HKB. It represents the density distribution of the effective phase space of the HKB equation when it is coupled with an environment, showing the difference between situated and passive coupling.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3750630&req=5

Figure 10: Signature of the situated HKB with s = 2.5 and the corresponding passively-coupled HKB. It represents the density distribution of the effective phase space of the HKB equation when it is coupled with an environment, showing the difference between situated and passive coupling.
Mentions: What we see (Figure 10) is that the dynamical signature of the system changes severely when the system is situated in an environment. Whereas the passively-coupled HKB displays the shape of the original HKB phase space with a “blurring” effect created by the addition of an structured input (we can see it in Figure 10 as a “thick” line shaped with the form of the HKB original phase space), in the situated system the structure of the dynamical signature no longer resembles the original HKB phase space. The situated system has modulated or re-shaped its state space into a specific pattern through sensorimotor coordination.

Bottom Line: These results are compared with two different models: a decoupled HKB with no sensory input and a passively-coupled HKB that is also decoupled but receives a structured input generated by a situated agent.We also present the notion of neurodynamic signature as the dynamic pattern that correlates with a specific behavior and we show how only a situated agent can display this signature compared to an agent that simply receives the exact same sensory input.Finally, we discuss the limitations and possible generalization of our model to contemporary neuroscience and philosophy of mind.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Computer Science and Engineering Systems, University of Zaragoza Zaragoza, Spain.

ABSTRACT
Despite the increase of both dynamic and embodied/situated approaches in cognitive science, there is still little research on how coordination dynamics under a closed sensorimotor loop might induce qualitatively different patterns of neural oscillations compared to those found in isolated systems. We take as a departure point the Haken-Kelso-Bunz (HKB) model, a generic model for dynamic coordination between two oscillatory components, which has proven useful for a vast range of applications in cognitive science and whose dynamical properties are well understood. In order to explore the properties of this model under closed sensorimotor conditions we present what we call the situated HKB model: a robotic model that performs a gradient climbing task and whose "brain" is modeled by the HKB equation. We solve the differential equations that define the agent-environment coupling for increasing values of the agent's sensitivity (sensor gain), finding different behavioral strategies. These results are compared with two different models: a decoupled HKB with no sensory input and a passively-coupled HKB that is also decoupled but receives a structured input generated by a situated agent. We can precisely quantify and qualitatively describe how the properties of the system, when studied in coupled conditions, radically change in a manner that cannot be deduced from the decoupled HKB models alone. We also present the notion of neurodynamic signature as the dynamic pattern that correlates with a specific behavior and we show how only a situated agent can display this signature compared to an agent that simply receives the exact same sensory input. To our knowledge, this is the first analytical solution of the HKB equation in a sensorimotor loop and qualitative and quantitative analytic comparison of spatially coupled vs. decoupled oscillatory controllers. Finally, we discuss the limitations and possible generalization of our model to contemporary neuroscience and philosophy of mind.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus