Literature DB >> 23454673

Do robots have goals? How agent cues influence action understanding in non-human primates.

Aleksandra Kupferberg1, Stefan Glasauer, Judith M Burkart.   

Abstract

The capacity to understand goals and intentions emerges early and universally in humans and is a basic precondition for the interpretation and prediction of others' actions, be it other humans, animals, or even robots. It is unclear, however, how this goal attribution system is acquired, in particular with regard to the role of prior experience with the actor and visual characteristics that are necessary. In four preferential looking time experiments we examined how familiarity, appearance, and movement of different agents influence the capability of marmosets to perceive the behavior of these agents as goal directed. To this end we compared the monkeys' reactions to the same goal-directed actions performed by four different agents: a human actor, a conspecific, a monkey-like small robot, and a black box. The results showed that monkeys attributed goals to the human actor, the conspecific, and the robot, but not the box. Thus, the monkeys extended their capacity for goal attribution not only to familiar agents, but also to agents not previously encountered, provided that they had some conspecific-like features. Our results suggest that in non-human primates, the system for goal attribution does not require previous experience with a specific agent or agent-category, as long as it exhibits certain visual characteristics like face, body or legs. Furthermore, the results suggest that the capacity to attribute goals emerged very early during evolution and, at least in marmoset monkeys, does not necessarily require pre-learned associations in order to fulfill its function when dealing with unfamiliar agents.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23454673     DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.01.047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Brain Res        ISSN: 0166-4328            Impact factor:   3.332


  8 in total

Review 1.  The evolutionary origins of syntax: Event cognition in nonhuman primates.

Authors:  Vanessa A D Wilson; Klaus Zuberbühler; Balthasar Bickel
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 14.957

Review 2.  Comparative thanatology, an integrative approach: exploring sensory/cognitive aspects of death recognition in vertebrates and invertebrates.

Authors:  André Gonçalves; Dora Biro
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Goal attribution to inanimate moving objects by Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata).

Authors:  Takeshi Atsumi; Hiroki Koda; Nobuo Masataka
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-01-05       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Marmoset prosociality is intentional.

Authors:  Judith M Burkart; Carel P van Schaik
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 3.084

5.  No evidence that monkeys attribute mental states to animated shapes in the Heider-Simmel videos.

Authors:  Jamie L Schafroth; Benjamin M Basile; Alex Martin; Elisabeth A Murray
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 4.996

6.  Preschool children fail primate prosocial game because of attentional task demands.

Authors:  Judith Maria Burkart; Katja Rueth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Do domestic dogs understand human actions as goal-directed?

Authors:  Sarah Marshall-Pescini; Maria Ceretta; Emanuela Prato-Previde
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Action Categorization in Rhesus Monkeys: discrimination of grasping from non-grasping manual motor acts.

Authors:  Koen Nelissen; Wim Vanduffel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.