http://www.bibsonomy.org/burst/user/tmalsburg/motorcontrolBibSonomy BuRST Feed for /user/tmalsburg/motorcontrol2008-07-21T01:33:32+02:00http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2abd889321fe501b8181be130419db171/tmalsburgtmalsburg2008-05-01T15:23:41+02:00vision dynamicfieldtheory changedetection workingmemory motorcontrol <span style="color:#555555;">Jeffrey S. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Johnson">Johnson</a> and John P. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Spencer">Spencer</a> and Gregor <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Schoner">Schoner</a> </span><em>New Ideas in Psychology</em>(<em>2007</em>)Thu May 01 15:23:41 CEST 2008New Ideas in PsychologyMoving to higher ground: The dynamic field theory and the dynamics of visual cognition2007vision dynamicfieldtheory changedetection workingmemory motorcontrol In the present report, we describe a new dynamic field theory that captures the dynamics of visuo-spatial cognition. This theory grew out of the dynamic systems approach to motor control and development, and is grounded in neural principles. The initial application of dynamic field theory to issues in visuo-spatial cognition extended concepts of the motor approach to decision making in a sensori-motor context, and, more recently, to the dynamics of spatial cognition. Here we extend these concepts still further to address topics in visual cognition, including visual working memory for non-spatial object properties, the processes that underlie change detection, and the ‘binding problem’ in vision. In each case, we demonstrate that the general principles of the dynamic field approach can unify findings in the literature and generate novel predictions. We contend that the application of these concepts to visual cognition avoids the pitfalls of reductionist approaches in cognitive science, and points toward a formal integration of brains, bodies, and behavior. http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/24b05c8ddd8bafaa889c36aa9eb2929f9/tmalsburgtmalsburg2008-04-27T12:41:57+02:00dynamicfieldtheory robotics motorcontrol tutorial <span style="color:#555555;">W. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Erlhagen">Erlhagen</a> and E. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Bicho">Bicho</a> </span><em>Journal of Neural Engineering</em>(<em>2006</em>)Sun Apr 27 12:41:57 CEST 2008Journal of Neural Engineering36-54{The dynamic neural field approach to cognitive robotics}32006dynamicfieldtheory robotics motorcontrol tutorial Abstract This tutorial presents an architecture for autonomous robots to generate behavior in joint action tasks. To efficiently interact with another agent in solving a mutual task, a robot should be endowed with cognitive skills such as memory, decision making, action understanding and prediction. The proposed architecture is strongly inspired by our current understanding of the processing principles and the neuronal circuitry underlying these functionalities in the primate brain. As a mathematical framework, we use a coupled system of dynamic neural fields, each representing the basic functionality of neuronal populations in different brain areas. It implements goal-directed behavior in joint action as a continuous process that builds on the interpretation of observed movements in terms of the partner’s action goal. We validate the architecture in two experimental paradigms: (1) a joint search task; (2) a reproduction of an observed or inferred end state of a grasping–placing sequence. We also review some of the mathematical results about dynamic neural fields that are important for the implementation work. http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2a689d7c09cdd567a736ff43dd5bdbe34/tmalsburgtmalsburg2008-04-26T16:55:34+02:00inhibition dynamicfieldtheory motorcontrol model eyemovements <span style="color:#555555;">C. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Wilimzig">Wilimzig</a> and S. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Schneider">Schneider</a> and G. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Schoner">Schoner</a> </span><em>Neural Netw</em><em>19(8):1059--74</em>(<em>2006</em>)Sat Apr 26 16:55:34 CEST 2008Neural Netw81059--74{The time course of saccadic decision making: dynamic field theory.}192006inhibition dynamicfieldtheory motorcontrol model eyemovements Making a saccadic eye movement involves two decisions, the decision to initiate the saccade and the selection of the visual target of the saccade. Here we provide a theoretical account for the time-courses of these two processes, whose instabilities are the basis of decision making. We show how the cross-over from spatial averaging for fast saccades to selection for slow saccades arises from the balance between excitatory and inhibitory processes. Initiating a saccade involves overcoming fixation, as can be observed in the countermanding paradigm, which we model accounting both for the temporal evolution of the suppression probability and its dependence on fixation activity. The interaction between the two forms of decision making is demonstrated by predicting how the cross-over from averaging to selection depends on the fixation stimulus in gap-step-overlap paradigms. We discuss how the activation dynamics of our model may be mapped onto neuronal structures including the motor map and the fixation cells in superior colliculus.http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2eee543604ba6298a620a5500a7ac202f/tmalsburgtmalsburg2008-04-19T17:40:12+02:00dynamicalsystems connectionism development perception motorcontrol <span style="color:#555555;">J.P. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Spencer">Spencer</a> and G. <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Schöner">Sch&#246;ner</a> </span><em>Developmental Science</em><em>6(4):392--412</em>(<em>2003</em>)Sat Apr 19 17:40:12 CEST 2008Developmental Science4392--412Bridging the representational gap in the dynamic systems approach to development62003dynamicalsystems connectionism development perception motorcontrol We describe the relationship between the dynamic systems approach to development and a recent approach to the dynamics of representational states – the dynamic field approach. Both approaches share an emphasis on the concepts of stability (attractor states), instability (especially bifurcations), soft-assembly and flexibility. But the dynamic field approach adds the concept of ‘activation’ to capture the strength with which behaviorally relevant information is specified. By explicitly linking these dynamic systems approaches, we allow for more direct comparisons between dynamic systems theory and connectionism. We note three current differences between these two approaches to development: (1) the notion of stability is central to how representational states are conceptualized in the dynamic field approach; (2) the dynamic field approach is more directly concerned with the sensorimotor origins of cognition; and (3) the dynamic approach is less advanced with regard to learning. We conclude that proponents of the two approaches can learn from the respective strengths of each approach. We suspect these differences will largely disappear in the next 20 years. http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2073bb98dbbfc2a1cf81108ab6250a9eb/tmalsburgtmalsburg2007-05-16T14:37:08+02:00mathematicalmodeling motorcontrol <span style="color:#555555;">Wolfram <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Erlhagen">Erlhagen</a> and Gregor <a href="http://www.bibsonomy.org/author/Schöner">Sch&#246;ner</a> </span><em>Psychological Review</em><em>109(3):545--572</em>(<em>2002</em>)Wed May 16 14:37:08 CEST 2007Psychological Review3545--572Dynamic Field Theory of Movement Preparation1092002mathematicalmodeling motorcontrol A theoretical framework for understanding movement preparation is proposed. Movement parameters are represented by activation fields, distributions of activation defined over metric spaces. The fields evolve under the influence of various sources of localized input, representing information about upcoming movements. Localized patterns of activation self-stabilize through cooperative and competitive interactions within the fields. The task environment is represented by a 2nd class of fields, which preshape the movement parameter representation. The model accounts for a sizable body of empirical findings on movement initiation (continuous and graded nature of movement preparation, dependence on the metrics of the task, stimulus uncertainty effect, stimulus­response compatibility effects, Simon effect, precuing paradigm, and others) and suggests new ways of exploring the structure of motor representations.