Literature DB >> 17050726

Near-optimal human adaptive control across different noise environments.

Manu Chhabra1, Robert A Jacobs.   

Abstract

A person learning to control a complex system needs to learn about both the dynamics and the noise of the system. We evaluated human subjects' abilities to learn to control a stochastic dynamic system under different noise conditions. These conditions were created by corrupting the forces applied to the system with noise whose magnitudes were either proportional or inversely proportional to the sizes of subjects' control signals. We also used dynamic programming to calculate the mathematically optimal control laws of an "ideal actor" for each noise condition. The results suggest that people learned control strategies tailored to the specific noise characteristics of their training conditions. In particular, as predicted by the ideal actors, they learned to use smaller control signals when forces were corrupted by proportional noise and to use larger signals when forces were corrupted by inversely proportional noise, thereby achieving levels of performance near the information-theoretic upper bounds. We conclude that subjects learned to behave in a near-optimal manner, meaning that they learned to efficiently use all available information to plan and execute control policies that maximized performances on their tasks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17050726      PMCID: PMC6674745          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2238-06.2006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  11 in total

1.  Muscle coordination is habitual rather than optimal.

Authors:  Aymar de Rugy; Gerald E Loeb; Timothy J Carroll
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-05-23       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Motor adaptation as a process of reoptimization.

Authors:  Jun Izawa; Tushar Rane; Opher Donchin; Reza Shadmehr
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-03-12       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Optimality, stochasticity, and variability in motor behavior.

Authors:  Emmanuel Guigon; Pierre Baraduc; Michel Desmurget
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 1.621

4.  Controlling speed and direction during interception: an affordance-based approach.

Authors:  Julien Bastin; Brett R Fajen; Gilles Montagne
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Adaptive allocation of vision under competing task demands.

Authors:  Chris R Sims; Robert A Jacobs; David C Knill
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  A computational model of limb impedance control based on principles of internal model uncertainty.

Authors:  Djordje Mitrovic; Stefan Klanke; Rieko Osu; Mitsuo Kawato; Sethu Vijayakumar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Short-term gains, long-term pains: how cues about state aid learning in dynamic environments.

Authors:  Todd M Gureckis; Bradley C Love
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2009-05-08

8.  Seeing versus believing: conflicting immediate and predicted feedback lead to suboptimal motor performance.

Authors:  Alon Fishbach; Ferdinando A Mussa-Ivaldi
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Time-integrated position error accounts for sensorimotor behavior in time-constrained tasks.

Authors:  Julian J Tramper; Bart van den Broek; Wim Wiegerinck; Hilbert J Kappen; Stan Gielen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Do Cost Functions for Tracking Error Generalize across Tasks with Different Noise Levels?

Authors:  Jonathon Sensinger; Adrian Aleman-Zapata; Kevin Englehart
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.