Perceptual Structures and Distributed Motor Control

By Michael A. Arbib. 1981

The sections in this article are:

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

An Incremental Self-Organizing Architecture for Sensorimotor Learning and Prediction (2017, background): “ciﬁcally on how much overlapping the sequences to be learned are. The idea of decomposition of sequences into reusable sub-patterns, when considering body motion, relates to the motor schemata theory [39]. This theory considers a set of so-called action primitives which are learned and then combined”
Schema design and implementation of the grasp-related mirror neuron system (2002, background): “We now present a high level view of the MNS (Mirror Neuron System) model in terms of the set of interacting schemas (functional units; Arbib 1981; Arbib et al. 1998, Chapter 3) shown in Figure 5, which define the MNS (Mirror Neuron System) model of F5 and related brain regions.”
The Prefrontal Cortex (1997, background): “More recently, that principle and its operational aspects have been characterized as the “action–perception cycle” (Arbib, 1981; Friston, 2013) or, where the emphasis is not so much on motor behavior as on cognition, simply as the “perception cycle” 8.”
A Biosemiotic and Ecological Approach to Music Cognition: Event Perception Between Auditory Listening and Cognitive Economy (2005, background): “…that we should consider an ‘‘interactive’’ approach to coping with the sonic world which brings together perception and action as exemplified in the cybernetic concept of circularity (Arbib 1981; Jeannerod 1994; Paillard 1994a; Annett 1996; Decety 1996; Deecke 1996; Berthoz 1997; Meystel 1998)”
Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action (2004, background): “The delays introduced by conduction processing times at the different relays along the visuomotor stream have led some authors to postulate the existence of a “look-ahead” or Smith predictor (Hoff & Arbib 1992, Miall et al. 1993). More recently, Desmurget and Grafton (2000) have emitted the hypothes”
Speech Production as State Feedback Control (2011, background): “…control (SFC) theory to modeling the role of the higher central nervous system (i.e., cortex, the cerebellum, thalamus, and basal ganglia – hereafter referred to as “the CNS”) in motor control (Arbib, 1981; Todorov and Jordan, 2002; Todorov, 2004; Guigon et al., 2008; Shadmehr and Krakauer, 2008).”
Grounding Procedural and Declarative Knowledge in Sensorimotor Anticipation (2011, background): “A complete agent architecture, which is able to produce a multitude of behaviors under different contextual conditions, can be composed of several couples of inverse and forward models, which we call here schemas (Arbib, 1981) (more on this below).”
Intentions and Motor Representations: the Interface Challenge (2017, background): “According to schema theory (Schmidt 1975, 2003; Arbib 1981, 2003; Jeannerod 1997) motor schemas are both repositories of information and control structures.”
The mirror system, imitation, and the evolution of language (2002, background): “behavior. However, a crucial observation of Arbib (1981) is that complex behaviors may be expressed as”
On Human Action (2011, background): “Indeed, quite early Arbib [1] proposed the idea of movement primitives, which can be viewed as sequences of actions that accomplish a complete goal-directed behavior.”
Dynamic Movement Primitives -A Framework for Motor Control in Humans and Humanoid Robotics (2006, background): “The same line of thinking generalizes to learning policies: a complicated policy could be learned from the combination of simpler (ideally globally valid) policies, i.e., policy primitives or movement primitives, as for instance: u = π x, α ,t ( ) = π k x, α k ,t ( ) k=1 K ∑ (3) Indeed, related idea”