4.1 Article

The robot in the crib: A developmental analysis of imitation skills in infants and robots

期刊

INFANT AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 43-53

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/icd.543

关键词

imitation; robot learning; developmental robotics; 'like me' hypothesis; active intermodal matching

资金

  1. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH &HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [R37HD022514] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [R37 HD022514-20, R37 HD022514-21, R37 HD022514] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interesting systems, whether biological or artificial, develop. Starting from some initial conditions, they respond to environmental changes, and continuously improve their capabilities. Developmental psychologists have dedicated significant effort to studying the developmental progression of infant imitation skills, because imitation underlies the infant's ability to understand and learn from his or her social environment. In a converging intellectual endeavour, roboticists have been equipping robots with the ability to observe and imitate human actions because such abilities can lead to rapid teaching of robots to perform tasks. We provide here a comparative analysis between studies of infants imitating and learning from human demonstrators, and computational experiments aimed at equipping a robot with such abilities. We will compare the research across the following two dimensions: (a) initial conditions-what is innate in infants, and what functionality is initially given to robots, and (b) developmental mechanisms-how does the performance of infants improve over time, and what mechanisms are given to robots to achieve equivalent behaviour. Both developmental science and robotics are critically concerned with: (a) how their systems can and do go 'beyond the stimulus' given during the demonstration, and (b) how the internal models used in this process are acquired during the lifetime of the system. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据