Learning to Manipulate and Categorize in Human and Artificial Agents

Morlino, Giuseppe; Gianelli, Claudia; Borghi, Anna M.; Nolfi, Stefano

doi:10.1111/cogs.12130

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We should design an experiment in which real flowers would be rated and compare the results to those of the present study. A growing body of research shows that the human recognition and categorization of objects and entities is closely linked to, and often facilitated by, interaction with the environment through a sensory-motor activity ( Morlino et al , 2015 ; Scorolli & Borghi , 2015 ; Smith , 2005a ; Smith , 2015b ). It would certainly be beneficial to take this into account in the research of flower beauty.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What flowers do we like? The influence of shape and color on the rating of flower beauty

Hůla

Flegr

2016

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is no doubt that people find flowers beautiful. Surprisingly, we know very little about the actual properties which make flowers so appealing to humans. Although the evolutionary aesthetics provides some theories concerning generally preferred flower traits, empirical evidence is largely missing. In this study, we used an online survey in which residents of the Czech Republic (n = 2006) rated the perceived beauty of 52 flower stimuli of diverse shapes and colors. Colored flowers were preferred over their uncolored versions. When controlling for flower shape, we found an unequal preference for different flower colors, blue being the most and yellow the least preferred. In the overall assessment of beauty, shape was more important than color. Prototypical flowers, i.e., radially symmetrical flowers with low complexity, were rated as the most beautiful. We also found a positive effect of sharp flower contours and blue color on the overall rating of flower beauty. The results may serve as a basis for further studies in some areas of the people-plant interaction research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What flowers do we like? The influence of shape and color on the rating of flower beauty

Hůla

Flegr

2016

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By thus ignoring crucial differences the bulk of work in this area failed to “give enough information about the objects used, and so failed to meet one of the primary goals of scientific research: these studies are not replicable ” (Chemero, 2009, p. 173, emphasis original). This is alarming given that molecular neuroscientists, behavioral geneticists and psychopharmacologists have relied on these “potentially confounded studies.” This is a clear, yet probably not isolated, case in which the need to go beyond the boundaries of traditional, orthodox cognitive psychology is evident (for a recent example that shows how attention to interactive properties of objects pays off empirically, see Morlino et al, 2014). …”

Section: Extended Functionalism Via Empirical Functionalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extensive enactivism: why keep it all in?

Hutto

Kirchhoff

Myin

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radical enactive and embodied approaches to cognitive science oppose the received view in the sciences of the mind in denying that cognition fundamentally involves contentful mental representation. This paper argues that the fate of representationalism in cognitive science matters significantly to how best to understand the extent of cognition. It seeks to establish that any move away from representationalism toward pure, empirical functionalism fails to provide a substantive “mark of the cognitive” and is bereft of other adequate means for individuating cognitive activity. It also argues that giving proper attention to the way the folk use their psychological concepts requires questioning the legitimacy of commonsense functionalism. In place of extended functionalism—empirical or commonsensical—we promote the fortunes of extensive enactivism, clarifying in which ways it is distinct from notions of extended mind and distributed cognition.

show abstract

“…Indeed, by studying artificial systems with the tools normally employed for biological ones, it may be easier to identify differences and similarities, and in parallel attempt to determine those causal relationships that escape conventional research in biology [e.g., the relationship between genetic relatedness and signal reliability studied by Mitri et al (2011)]. In behavioral studies, the experimental setup should ideally be replicable also with biological systems (Froese and Di Paolo, 2010), to attempt a generalization of the identified results and possibly a direct comparison (Morlino et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary Robotics: Model or Design?

Trianni

2014

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I review recent work in evolutionary robotics (ER), and discuss the perspectives and future directions of the field. First, I propose to draw a crisp distinction between studies that exploit ER as a design methodology on the one hand, and studies that instead use ER as a modeling tool to better understand phenomena observed in biology. Such a distinction is not always that obvious in the literature, however. It is my conviction that ER would profit from an explicit commitment to one or the other approach. Indeed, I believe that the constraints imposed by the specific approach would guide the experimental design and the analysis of the results obtained, therefore reducing arbitrary choices and promoting the adoption of principled methods that are common practice in the target domain, be it within engineering or the life sciences. Additionally, this would improve dissemination and the impact of ER studies on other disciplines, leading to the establishment of ER as a valid tool either for design or modeling purposes.

show abstract

Learning to Manipulate and Categorize in Human and Artificial Agents

Cited by 11 publications

References 50 publications

What flowers do we like? The influence of shape and color on the rating of flower beauty

What flowers do we like? The influence of shape and color on the rating of flower beauty

Extensive enactivism: why keep it all in?

Evolutionary Robotics: Model or Design?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About