Recipient design in human communication: Simple heuristics or perspective taking?

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Volumn , Issue SEPTEMBER, 2012, Pages

  Blokpoel, Mark ^a   van Kesterenf, Marlieke ^a   Stolk, Arjen ^a   Haselager, Pim ^a   Toni, Ivan ^a   van Rooij, Iris ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Communication; Computational intractability; Heuristics; Recipient design

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GOAL ATTAINMENT; HEURISTICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMAN RELATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; LEARNING; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; SOCIAL BELIEF; STUDY DESIGN; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 84867135011     PISSN: 16625161     EISSN: 16625161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00253     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Blokpoel, M., Kwisthout, J., van der Weide, T. P., and van Rooij, I. (2010). "How action understanding can be rational, Bayesian and tractable, " in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed S. O. R. Catrambone (Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society), 1643-1648.
2. Blokpoel, M., Kwisthout, J., Wareham, T., Haselager, P., Toni, I., and van Rooij, I. (2011). "The computational costs of recipient design and intention recognition in communication, " in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, eds L. Carlson, C. Holscher, and T. Shipley (Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society), 465-470.
3. Breazeal, C. (2002). Designing Sociable Robots. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in StrategicInteraction. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. Clark, H., and Carlson, T. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language 58, 332-373.
7. De Ruiter, J., Noordzij, M., Newman-Norlund, S., Hagoort, P., and Toni, I. (2007). "On the origin of intentions, " in Sensorimotor Foundations of Higher Cognition, eds Y. Rosseti, P. Haggard, and M. Kawato (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 601-618.
8. De Ruiter, J., Noordzij, M., Newman-Norlund, S., Newman-Norlund, R., Hagoort, P., Levinson, S., and Toni, I. (2010). Exploring the cognitive infrastructure of communication. Interact. Stud. 11, 51-77.
9. Dreyfus, H. L. (2007). Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Philos. Psychol. 20, 247-268.
10. Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., and Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 87, 327-339.
11. Feiler, L., and Camerer, C. F. (2010). Code creation in endogenous merger experiments. Econ. Inq. 48, 337-352.
12. Fletcher, P., Happé, F., Frith, U., Baker, S., Dolan, R., Frackowiak, R., and Frith, C. (1995). Other minds in the brain: a functional imaging study of "theory of mind" in story comprehension. Cognition 57, 109-128.
13. Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental studyofthe emergence ofhuman communication systems. Cogn. Sci. 29, 737-767.
14. Galantucci, B. (2009). Experimental semiotics: a new approach for studying communication as a form of joint action. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 393-410.
15. Galantucci, B., and Garrod, S. (2010). Experimental semiotics: a new approach for studying the emergence and the evolution of human communication. Interact. Stud. 11, 1-13.
16. Galati, A., and Brennan, S. (2010). Attenuating information in spoken communication: for the speaker, or for the addressee? J. Mem. Lang. 62, 35-51.
17. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristics work. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3, 20-29.
18. Gigerenzer, G., and Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 107-143.
19. Gigerenzer, G., and Goldstein, D. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol. Rev. 103, 650-669.
20. Gigerenzer, G., and Todd, P. (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21. Green, S., Billinghurst, M., Chen, X., and Chase, J. (2008). Human-robot collaboration: a literature review and augmented reality approach in design. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 5, 1-18.
22. Grice, H. (1975). "Logic and conversation, " in Syntax and Semantic 3: Speech Acts, eds P. Cole and J. Morgan (New York, NY: Academic press), 41-58.
23. Grice, H. (1989). Studies in the Way ofWords. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Haselager, W. (1997). Cognitive Science and Folk Psychology: The Right Frame of Mind. London, UK: Sage.
25. Horton, W., and Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition 59, 91-117.
26. Keysar, B., Barr, D., and Horton, W. (1998). The egocentric basis of language use: insights from a processing approach. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 7, 46-50.
27. Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Marsh, B. (2002). Heuristics as social tools. New Ideas Psychol. 20, 49-57.
29. McCleery, J., Surtees, A., Graham, K., Richards, J., and Apperly, I. (2011). The neural and cognitive time course of theory of mind. J. Neurosci. 31, 12849-12854.
30. Newell, B. (2005). Re-visions of rationality? Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 11-15.
31. Newman-Norlund, S., Noordzij, M., Newman-Norlund, R., Volman, I., Ruiter, J., Hagoort, P., and Toni, I. (2009). Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition 111, 46-54.
32. Noordzij, M., Newman-Norlund, S., De Ruiter, J., Hagoort, P., Levinson, S., and Toni, I. (2009). Brain mechanisms underlying human communication. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 3, 14-27. doi: 10.3389/neuro.09.014.2009
33. Pylyshyn, Z. (ed.). (1987). The Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 4, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
34. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systemat-ics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50, 696-735.
35. Satake, S., Kanda, T., Glas, D. F., Imai, M., Ishiguro, H., and Hagita, N. (2009). "How to approach humans?: strategies for social robots to initiate interaction, " in Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference On Human Robot Interaction, HRI '09, (New York, NY: ACM), 109-116.
36. Scott-Phillips, T., Kirby, S., and Ritchie, G. (2009). Signalling signalhood and the emergence of communication. Cognition 113, 226-233.
37. Selten, R., and Warglien, M. (2007). The emergence of simple languages in an experimental coordination game. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 7361.
38. Shintel, H., and Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more: a minimalist account of joint action in communication. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 260-273.
39. Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Koizumi, S., Ishiguro, H., and Hagita, N. (2007). "Group attention control for communication robots with wizard of oz approach, " in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI '07, (New York, NY: ACM), 121-128.
40. Stolk, A., Verhagen, L., Schoffelen, J-M., Oostenveld, R., Blokpoel, M., Hagoort, P., van Rooij, I. and Toni, I. (2012) Neural mechanisms of human communicative innovations. 42nd annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, New Orleans.
41. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124-1131.
42. van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cogn. Sci. 32, 939-984.
43. van Rooij, I., Kwisthout, J., Blokpoel, M., Szymanik, J., Wareham, T., and Toni, I. (2011). Intentional communication: computationally easy or difficult? Front. Hum. Neurosci. 5, 1-18. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011. 00052
44. van Rooij, I., Wright, C., and Wareham, H. T. (2012). Intractability and the use of heuristics in psychological explanations. Synthese 187, 471-487.
45. Weber, R. A., and Camerer, C. F. (2003). Cultural conflict and merger failure: an experimental approach. Manag. Sci. 49, 400-415.