Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Harnad, S. (2003b) Categorical Perception . Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science . Nature Publishing Group. Macmillan. http://www.youtube.com...
-
(10a. Comment Overflow) (50+)
-
Psychology PSYC 538, Winter 2018: Categorization, Communication and Consciousness Time : Tuesdays 2:35-5:25 Place : STBIO S3/3 ...
I think that though mirror neurons have many clinical applications with what they are actually doing, I don't think that necessarily understanding HOW they work provides much of any insight into how the brain works as a whole. That said, if we understand how mirror neurons work we may get better insight to how disorders like Autism function. In patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder it has been noted that mirror neurons in premotor cortex do not produce the expected responses to observing movements. These neurons only fire when there is an action that is goal-directed (it can't just be an arbitrary movement, ex: hitting a nail with a hammer; and the required tool for the movement has to be used for mirror neurone excitation, ex: if the hammer is not held, the neurons won't fire) and the goal has to be an understood component of the movement being observed. The neurons furthermore only fire when there is "embodied simulation" or "internal imitation" of the observed action which suggests that patients with ASD are not necessarily able to understand the goal the movement is directed towards. If the mechanisms for how mirror neurons work and behave can be understood, we might be able to understand more fully how ASD behaves as a disorder and more effective therapies may be developed.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this paper, I found the concept of social interaction shaping the MN's connections really interesting and was thinking about what happens when two people interact (or when a T3 and a human interact). The first time that we meet a person, we spontaneously employ certain behaviours (i.e. specific facial expressions, gestures, word choice) that we have learned from our past experiences (or were programmed to do). A T3 machine should be completely capable of interacting in a believable way, even if they have no MNs. However, often if we spend enough time with a certain person we start to imitate some of their gestures or change the way we speak to be more representative of the way they do. I would assume this ability partially comes from our MN's capacity to "learn" to perceive certain coordinations of movement and be active when we are executing the same coordinations. So, the “how” question would not just have to include how we are recognizing these actions and able to then replicate them, but also “how” we are able to learn. Hypothetically, are we able to teach a T3 robot to be able to learn in such a subtle way?
ReplyDeleteI thought the exact same thing when reading about the social element, and I agree with your opinion. However, do we need to make a T3 robot able to make such subtle changes? Would it not pass T3 without them? I think it would not because there are some people who lack those subtle social imitations and gestures, and when we talk to them we immediately think of them as awkward, and it can be as simple as smiling back to someone or nodding when someone else is speaking. However, people who lack social skill sometimes omit certain subtle behaviors when talking to others, so you could also argue that because part of the human population does not perform some of those subtle behaviors then they wouldn’t be needed to pass T3.
DeleteI was quite convinced by Cook's account of motor neuron development as a associative learning process. From what we know about Hebbian neural plasticity this account seems to fit well within current models. But, I have trouble agreeing with how Cook argues that this occurs behaviorally. He argues that when adults imitates an infant's facial movement (e.g. a lip protrusion) this results in a correlation of excitation between sensory neurons observing the movement and motor neurons producing it. This correlation results in strengthening of the connection between the neurons so that in the future they both fire during observation/execution. I am not arguing that this does not occur. However, I would assert that the majority of learning occurs by observation, then imitation. Not spontaneous production of movement followed by imitation of that movement by another. For example, when I am learning how to ski, I will not begin by spontaneously attempting to negotiate a ski hill. I will observe a more expertised peer skiing, then attempt to imitate their movement. I believe that the correlation driving mirror neuron functioning here is still between visual observation and then motor imitation/execution. But I think that the order of this behavior is what is important here.
ReplyDeleteCooks article talks about mirror neurons and focuses on two popular theories examining them: the genetic account and the associative account. The genetic account asserts that individuals developed MN because they were adaptive, that "gene based natural selection has provided each individual…with MN that code the mapping between a fixed set of observed and executed actions, and that experience plays a minimal role". Whereas the associative account asserts sensorimotor experience is integral for developing MN. I was thinking what each theory would mean for the prospects of creating T3s like Isaure. The genetic account would seem to be more promising, as one would perhaps then assume that if they reverse engineered MN they would have a T3 capable of the same adaptive social functions. The associative account however, makes we wonder if reverse engineering MNs would leave the T3 with the same capacities as an infant? Would the T3 then need to engage in sensorimotor experiences to further develop these MN? Not sure if I am understanding correctly but this is what came to mind!
ReplyDelete“Rather, the two accounts differ in the specific roles they assign to genetic evolution and to learning, and in the types of experience they take to be important”
ReplyDeleteBoth explanation seem to be valid in terms of mirror neurones being something that offered us-evolutionary advantage but later as the humans evolve, the functions also evolved in terms of it offering us social advantages. Similar to the brain having multiple functions in terms of maintaining and protecting our body, mirror neurones can equally could have served both purposes, and it is very conceivable to see on function being active at one context while the other being active at another with no clear contradiction.
I found this to be an interesting read, and a refreshing new perspective on mirror neurons. I have learned about these neurons in many other courses but have never been taught about them from this perspective. As was discussed in class and described by many others, it is clear that prior to the discovery of mirror neurons we knew that we had the ability to imitate, and now with the discovery of mirror neurons, we are still unable to address the underlying issue of how this imitation occurs. Just knowing the neural correlates doesn’t get us any closer to a clear answer about the mechanism at work here. For answers to these deeper questions, we will need much more research to be conducted. However, as was discussed in the Fodor article, much of the current neurological studies that are conducted using neuroimaging techniques have many limitations, namely the issue of correlation and causation. Since we cannot easily conduct causational studies using neuroimaging techniques, it will be interesting to see what innovative techniques or methods of using these techniques would need to be in use in order to learn the ‘how’ mechanism of imitation.
ReplyDeleteThis paper shows how much work has been put into the study of MNs since their discovery. However, everything seems to be very discrete and confounded at the same time. Yes we can imitate; different parts of the brain are involved for different kinds of imitations, which are innate or learned, but the distinction of the sources was not yet clearly formulated. The reason why and how these MNs fire seem to be confounded and not clearly defined. There are different reasons of firing and many variables within the neuron itself (origin, development and location in the brain), which clearly make its study complicated. Consequently, there is no clear consensus on any of these variables. Even if there are some evidences and well-articulated hypothesis, the causation cannot be certain because brain-imaging studies are only showing correlation. On top of this, some evidences are from animals’ studies, where we have no guarantee that can be extrapolated to humans.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to establish any cause effect relationship from the activity of mirror neurons in the cortex and our ability to mimic, recognize like-movements and vocalizations as well as producing speech sounds another makes. However, knowledge of evolutionary adaptations suggests that these changes would produce a survival advantage for the organism. In humans and monkeys, whose main adaptation – an enlarged and functionally superior brain – has afforded us many improved cognitive functions compared to other earthly organisms. The fact that mirror neurons are present in both our species suggests that this adaptation occurred early in our phylogenetic tree and indicates that this mutation may be underlying some of our improved cognitive abilities. As I said, this link is difficult to appreciate without further investigation. What could be an interesting experiment would be to attempt using knock-out genetics on the genes underlying this mirror neuron function (hopefully with no side effect) to see in learning and memory, imitation and/or perception is deeply affected by their proper functioning.
ReplyDelete) “The role of MNs in action understanding, or any other social cognitive function, is an open empirical question. The associative account is functionally permissive; it allows, but does not assume, that MNs make a positive contribution to social cognition”
ReplyDeleteThis made me think of the implications of T3. Since T3 talks about internal states and sensorimotor behavior that a robot should pass this test in order to be indistinguishable from humans. Mirror neurons help us understand motor behavior in other humans and help us have empathy towards other people as well. Since a robot or a computer lacks empathy since they aren’t able to sense our movements and internal thoughts would understanding mirror neurons help in the development of a computer that could pass the T3 test? Mirror neurons are also part of human evolution in order for social development. If someone would show distress in the face but fake in their voice that everything would be fine when clearly visually it isn’t… would a computer be able to distinguish these things without mirror neurons and empathy?
While very exciting, I do wonder about the future application for mirror neurons. It does not surprise me that humans have an affinity for imitation and observation, as we are highly social creatures. I wonder how antisocial personality disorder or autism spectrum disorder, both of which have been implicated with deficits in interpersonal functioning and imitation, would reflect differences for mirror neuron activation. Additionally, similarly to language, I wonder how these mirror neurons developed. It seems plausible to me that mirror neurons and the ability to observe/imitate/replicate actions would be evolutionarily advantageous and passed down through generations. Do humans have a preferential mechanism towards this, to allow them to be more social and facilitate group bonding?
ReplyDelete