feedback too slow; psychologists & cybernetics

[Avery Andrews 920104.1339[
  Dennis Delprato (930114)

Cool. Smith & Smith have a useful bad guy list, tho with nothing after
1981, so it would still be good to know what Schmidt 1982 has to say.

Does this mean you don't have access to R. A. Schmidt's Motor
Control and Learning, referred to by Jordan & Rosenbaum (in
Posner, Ed., Foundations of Cog. Sci.? I can probably find a

Yes. This would be very helpful. I can't promise a good product
real soon, since I'm feeling overextended & have to do some linguistics
soon, but I do promise to try to try, as it were.

I agree entirely that levels is the key here. Presumably what there is
in piano playing is systems that set a series of reference levels in
sequence, without waiting for evidence that one has been achieved in
order to set the next, with the details in charge of lower-level systems
(are the spinal reflex loops fast enough to be useful in controlling
piano playing, or are their effects actually disturbances that have to
be pre-compensated for?). But many higher-level aspects of the performance
then require perception of what has happened already (I'm a firm
believer in the existence and importance of response-chaining in
everyday life).

In K. VanLehn's `Problem Solving and Cognitive Skill Acquisition' in
the Posner volume, p. 555, there's an interesting statement about
automization of skills:

  If exactly the same task is practiced for hundreds of trials, it
  can be automatized, that is, it will be very rapid, cease to
  interfere with concurrent tasks, and run to completion once
  started even if the subject tries to stop it. If the task varies
  beyond certain limits during training, however, even hundreds of
  practice trials to not suffice for automatization (Schneider and
  Shiffrin 1977, Schiffrin and Sneider (1977).

the citations are:

  1) Controlled and automatic human information processing:I.
        Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review 84:1-66.

  2) Controlled and automatic human information processing:II.
        Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.
        Psych. Rev. 84:127-190

(Lest people get false ideas about my ability to cover literature, the
book literally just fell open at that page, so I read the paragraph at
the top. Pennies from Heaven.)

So my story would be that there are automatic routines, which are
presumably normally very short, but with extensive practice can be
made larger. And may be the skill acquisition literature can provide
some actual evidence about what kinds of disturbances these lower level
units can handle (assuming that that's what `varying the task' involves).

  Bill Powers (930113), psychologists & cyberneticians

I found some likely-looking references to feedback bungles in
Quantitative Analysis of Purposive Behavior, but who actually commits
the Input Error?

  Avery.Andrews@anu.edu.au

[From Rick Marken (930116.0930)]

Avery Andrews (recently) asks

I found some likely-looking references to feedback bungles in
Quantitative Analysis of Purposive Behavior, but who actually commits
the Input Error?

This is THE most common error made by students of human tracking
behavior. If you want to see the Input Error in Living Black and White
just go to ANY text on manual tracking. I'm not in my office at
the moment but there is a book in there by Sheridan and Ferrell (I forget
the first initials and the title -- it might be "Man machine systems");
it's a standard in the field, written in the early 1970s. There are
many diagrams in there which show input ("Error") as the stimulus
for output; the person is just a box that transforms "Error" into
Outut. Amazing -- the error is in our environments, Horatio, not in
ourselves. You can also find this blunder in a classic by E. C. Poulton (I
also forget the title and date -- but you could find the book by looking
up the author); plenty of diagrams and equations showing the input blunder.
I also have some recent compendia on research related to human factors
engineering; these contain chapters on manual control and they have
many lovely illustrations of the input blunder (these references
are also quite recent -- late 1980s -- just to show that nobody has
caught on yet). So there is PLENTY of documentation of the input
blunder -- it is probably THE most common blunder in the application
of control theory to behavior.

Best

Rick