You never fail to surprise me: The hallmark of the Other: Experimental study and simulations of perceptual crossing

Interaction Studies

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 373-396

  Lenay, Charles ^a   Stewart, John ^a   Rohde, Marieke ^b   Amar, Amal Ali ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TECHNOLOGIE DE COMPIÈGNE   (France)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS   (Germany)

Author keywords

Evolutionary robotics; Perceptual crossing; Recognition of other

Indexed keywords

EID: 82155166666     PISSN: 15720373     EISSN: 15720381     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/is.12.3.01len     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Argyle, M. & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and afliation, Sociometry, 28, 289-304.
2. Argyle, M. & Cook M. (1976). Gaze and Mutual Gaze. London: Cambridge University Press.
3. Auvray, M., Lenay, C. & Stewart, J. (2009). Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas in Psychology, 27, 32-47.
4. Bailenson, J.N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A.C. & Loomis, J.M. (2001). Equilibrium Teory Revisited: Mutual Gaze and Personal Space in Virtual Environments, Presence, 10, 6, 583-598. (Pubitemid 33580002)
5. Beer, R. (1996). Toward the evolution of dynamical neural networks for minimally cognitive behavior. In P. Maes., M. Mataric, J. Meyer, J. Pollack, S. Wilson, (Eds.), From Animals to Animats 4 (pp. 421-429). Cambridge MA.: MIT Press.
6. Csibra, G., Gergely, G., Biro, S., Koos, O., & Brockbank, M. (1999). Goal attribution without agency cues: Te perception of 'pure reason' in infancy Cognition, 72, 237-267. (Pubitemid 29462583)
7. Dennett, D. (1987). Te Intentional Stance. Cambridge MA.: MIT press.
8. Di Paolo, E., Rohde, M. & Iizuka, H. (2008). Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing. New Ideas in Psychology 26, 278-294.
9. Dinstein I., Tomas C., Behrmann M., & Heeger D.J. (2008). A mirror up to nature. Current Biology 18 (1): R13-8.
10. Fogel, A. (2006). Dynamic systems research on interindividual communication: Te transformation of meaning-making. Te Journal of Developmental Processes, 1, 7-30.
11. Fogel, A. & Garvey, A. (2007). Alive communication, Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 231-257.
12. Hanneton, S., Gapenne, O., Genouel, C., Lenay, C., & Marque, C. (1999). Dynamics of shape recognition through a minimal visuo-tactile sensory substitution interface, Tird Int. Conf. On Cognitive and Neural Systems, Boston, 26-29.
13. Harvey, I., Di Paolo, E., Wood, R., Quinn, M. & Tuci, E. (2005). Evolutionary Robotics: A new scientifc tool for studying cognition. Artifcial Life, 11, 1-2, 79-98. (Pubitemid 40394097)
14. Keysers, C. (2010). Mirror Neurons. Current Biology 19 (21): R971-97.
15. Lenay, C., Auvray, M., Sebbah, F.-D., Stewart, J. (2006). Perception of an intentional subject: An enactive approach. In Proceedings of the Tird International Conference on Enactive Interface, Montpellier, France, 37-38.
16. Lewis, D.K. (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17. Meltzof, A.N. & Decety, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: a rapproche-ment between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, Phil.Trans.R.Soc. Lond. B, 358, 491-500. (Pubitemid 36380529)
18. Murray, L. & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulations of interactions between two-month- olds and their mothers. In T.M.F. Fox (Ed.), Social perception in Infants, Norwood, N.J.: Ablex., 177-197.
19. Nadel, J. & Muir, D. (Eds.) (2005). Emotional Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Nolf, S. & Floreano, D. (2000). Evolutionary Robotics: Te Biology, Intelligence and Technology of Self-Organizing Machines. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
21. Premack, D. (1990). Te infant's theory of self-propelled objects. Cognition, 36, 1-16.
22. Reddy, V. (2003). On being the object of attention: implications for self-other consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 9, 297-402.
23. Rizzolatti G. & Craighero L. (2004). "Te mirror-neuron system". Annual Review of Neuroscience 27: 169-192.
24. Rohde, M. & Di Paolo, E. (2008). Embodiment and Perceptual Crossing in 2D: A Comparative Evolutionary Robotics Study. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (SAB 2008), Osaka, Japan, 83-92.
25. Rohde, M. (2010). Enaction, Embodiment, Evolutionary Robotics. Simulation Models for a Post-Cognitive Science of Mind. Tinking Machines, 1. Amsterdam, Paris: Atlantis Press.
26. Sribunruangrit, N., Marque, C., Lenay, C., Gapenne, O. & Vanhoutte, C. (2002). Braille Box: Analysis of the Parallelism Concept to Access Graphic Information for Blind People. In Proceedings of the Second Joint EMBS/BMES Conference. Houston, Texas, 2424-2425.
27. Tomas, R., Press, C., Haggard, P. (2006). Shared representations in body perception, Acta Psychologica, 121, 317-330. (Pubitemid 43125809)
28. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne T. & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: Te origins of cultural cognition, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675-735.