Comparative evaluation of approaches in T.4.1-4.3 and working definition of adaptive module

The goal of this deliverable is two-fold: (1) to present and compare different approaches towards learning and encoding movements us- ing dynamical systems that have been developed by the AMARSi partners (in the past during the first 6 months of the project), and (2) to analyze their suitability to be used as adaptive modules, i.e. as building blocks for the complete architecture that will be devel- oped in the project. The document presents a total of eight approaches, in two groups: modules for discrete movements (i.e. with a clear goal where the movement stops) and for rhythmic movements (i.e. which exhibit periodicity). The basic formulation of each approach is presented together with some illustrative simulation results. Key character- istics such as the type of dynamical behavior, learning algorithm, generalization properties, stability analysis are then discussed for each approach. We then make a comparative analysis of the different approaches by comparing these characteristics and discussing their suitability for the AMARSi project

From Parallel Sequence Representations to Calligraphic Control: A Conspiracy of Neural Circuits

Calligraphic writing presents a rich set of challenges to the human movement control system. These challenges include: initial learning, and recall from memory, of prescribed stroke sequences; critical timing of stroke onsets and durations; fine control of grip and contact forces; and letter-form invariance under voluntary size scaling, which entails fine control of stroke direction and amplitude during recruitment and derecruitment of musculoskeletal degrees of freedom. Experimental and computational studies in behavioral neuroscience have made rapid progress toward explaining the learning, planning and contTOl exercised in tasks that share features with calligraphic writing and drawing. This article summarizes computational neuroscience models and related neurobiological data that reveal critical operations spanning from parallel sequence representations to fine force control. Part one addresses stroke sequencing. It treats competitive queuing (CQ) models of sequence representation, performance, learning, and recall. Part two addresses letter size scaling and motor equivalence. It treats cursive handwriting models together with models in which sensory-motor tmnsformations are performed by circuits that learn inverse differential kinematic mappings. Part three addresses fine-grained control of timing and transient forces, by treating circuit models that learn to solve inverse dynamics problems.National Institutes of Health (R01 DC02852

Neural Models of Normal and Abnormal Behavior: What Do Schizophrenia, Parkinsonism, Attention Deficit Disorder, and Depression Have in Common?

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Office of Naval Research (N00014-95-1-0409); National Science Foundation (IRI-97-20333

Feedback control by online learning an inverse model

A model, predictor, or error estimator is often used by a feedback controller to control a plant. Creating such a model is difficult when the plant exhibits nonlinear behavior. In this paper, a novel online learning control framework is proposed that does not require explicit knowledge about the plant. This framework uses two learning modules, one for creating an inverse model, and the other for actually controlling the plant. Except for their inputs, they are identical. The inverse model learns by the exploration performed by the not yet fully trained controller, while the actual controller is based on the currently learned model. The proposed framework allows fast online learning of an accurate controller. The controller can be applied on a broad range of tasks with different dynamic characteristics. We validate this claim by applying our control framework on several control tasks: 1) the heating tank problem (slow nonlinear dynamics); 2) flight pitch control (slow linear dynamics); and 3) the balancing problem of a double inverted pendulum (fast linear and nonlinear dynamics). The results of these experiments show that fast learning and accurate control can be achieved. Furthermore, a comparison is made with some classical control approaches, and observations concerning convergence and stability are made

Action and behavior: a free-energy formulation

We have previously tried to explain perceptual inference and learning under a free-energy principle that pursues Helmholtz’s agenda to understand the brain in terms of energy minimization. It is fairly easy to show that making inferences about the causes of sensory data can be cast as the minimization of a free-energy bound on the likelihood of sensory inputs, given an internal model of how they were caused. In this article, we consider what would happen if the data themselves were sampled to minimize this bound. It transpires that the ensuing active sampling or inference is mandated by ergodic arguments based on the very existence of adaptive agents. Furthermore, it accounts for many aspects of motor behavior; from retinal stabilization to goal-seeking. In particular, it suggests that motor control can be understood as fulfilling prior expectations about proprioceptive sensations. This formulation can explain why adaptive behavior emerges in biological agents and suggests a simple alternative to optimal control theory. We illustrate these points using simulations of oculomotor control and then apply to same principles to cued and goal-directed movements. In short, the free-energy formulation may provide an alternative perspective on the motor control that places it in an intimate relationship with perception