Habitual well-oiled perceptions

[From Rick Marken (991022.0740)]

Bill Powers (991021.2003 MDT)--

We have a perfectly straightforward case of two models which
can't both be right. One says that perceptual events trigger
off well-oiled habitual responses, and the other says that
>responses will vary as needed to create the desired outcomes
of behavior, as appropriate to disturbances

Martin Taylor (991022 09:56) --

I'm not sure the situation is so black and white.

Gee, you were doing so well there;-) Yes, it is a black and
white distinction; see the Bourbon and Powers paper in your
own IJHMS to see how clearly the distinction can be made.

I think, for example, of the time when I was writing a lot
about signal detection theory. I type pretty fast, and I found
time after time when I wanted to write, say, "detecting" I would
write "d e t c t i o erase n g". It certainly seems like a
sequence of "well- oiled habitual responses."

Interesting example (it happens to me all the time, to) And it
does certainly _seem_ like one is producing a well- oiled, habitual
response. But I would bet (based on my confidence in the PCT
model and all the research done to test it) that what is
being produced is a well-oiled, habitual _perception_. The
mistake you are making is setting a _reference_ for "detection"
rather than "detecting". The time to fix things is the time
is takes to revise the reference. I'm sure you would see this
if you were able to introduce a disturbance just before the
reference is changed from "detection" to "detecting"; you would
briefly act to protect the perception from becoming "detecting",
and then let the change hold once the reference is revised.
You can see something like this happen in the "Levels of Control"
demo at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[Martin Taylor 991022 15:33]

[From Rick Marken (991022.0740)]

Bill Powers (991021.2003 MDT)--

We have a perfectly straightforward case of two models which
can't both be right. One says that perceptual events trigger
off well-oiled habitual responses, and the other says that
>responses will vary as needed to create the desired outcomes
of behavior, as appropriate to disturbances

Martin Taylor (991022 09:56) --

I'm not sure the situation is so black and white.

Gee, you were doing so well there;-) Yes, it is a black and
white distinction; see the Bourbon and Powers paper in your
own IJHMS to see how clearly the distinction can be made.

Interesting that your should follow this by repeating my own discussion
of what is going on, but without describing the reasons I said what I
did--that sequence control systems necessarily involve loop delays that
are long compared to the _finite_ length of the controlled sequence
perception, and without discussing the conditions that I suggested
could be used to actually distinguish the two models. The Bourbon and
Powers demonstration cannot be generalized directly to that situation,
even though the philosophy of the paper can.

Why did you do that? Was it because the beginning of my posting provided
a stimulus that caused an obligate response? Were you just trying to
demonstrate that S-R is the right model to describe Rick Marken;-?

Of course, perceptual events do not "trigger off well-oiled habitual
responses"--but sequence control units seem to. The difference is in
that sequence control involves setting up temporal patterns of reference
values for lower-level units when a perception at a higher level results
in an error that generates an output to the sequence control unit. That's
what I said, and that's what you said I would understand if only...

Ah well, can't win them all, especially when faced with an S-R mechanism:-)

Martin

[From Rick Marken (991022.1530)]

Bill Powers (991021.2003 MDT)--

We have a perfectly straightforward case of two models which
can't both be right. One says that perceptual events trigger
off well-oiled habitual responses, and the other says that
>responses will vary as needed to create the desired outcomes
of behavior, as appropriate to disturbances

Martin Taylor (991022 09:56) --

I'm not sure the situation is so black and white.

Me:

Yes, it is a black and white distinction; see the Bourbon and
Powers paper in your own IJHMS to see how clearly the
distinction can be made.

Martin Taylor (991022 15:33) --

The Bourbon and Powers demonstration cannot be generalized
directly to that situation, even though the philosophy of
the paper can.

Certainly it can. You just have to make sure that you observe
the behavior of the controlled sequence on the appropriate time
scale, which basically means giving the system enough time,
after application of a disturbance, to bring the controlled
sequence back to the reference state.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

This is from Phil Runkel on 22 Oct 99,
to ask Rick Marken a question about the comment he wrote to Bill P and
Martin T on this same date.

Rick, you wrote to Bill and Martin:

... what is
being produced is a well-oiled, habitual _perception_. The
mistake you are making is setting a _reference_ for "detection"
rather than "detecting". The time to fix things is the time
is takes to revise the reference. I'm sure you would see this
if you were able to introduce a disturbance just before the
reference is changed from "detection" to "detecting"; you would
briefly act to protect the perception from becoming "detecting",
and then let the change hold once the reference is revised.

Rick: Is the disturbance you propose analogous to the demonstration
where I stretch my arm out horizontally and you press my hand briefly?

[From Rick Marken (991023.1010)]

Phil Runkel (22 Oct 99) --

Rick, you wrote to Bill and Martin:
> ... what is
> being produced is a well-oiled, habitual _perception_. The
> mistake you are making is setting a _reference_ for "detection"
> rather than "detecting". The time to fix things is the time
> is takes to revise the reference. I'm sure you would see this
> if you were able to introduce a disturbance just before the
> reference is changed from "detection" to "detecting"; you would
> briefly act to protect the perception from becoming "detecting",
> and then let the change hold once the reference is revised.

Rick: Is the disturbance you propose analogous to the
demonstration where I stretch my arm out horizontally and
you press my hand briefly?

First, I wrote this mainly for Martin's sake; I think Bill
already understands it (since he taught it to me;-)).

Second, yes; the disturbance I propose is analogous to the
demonstration where you control horizontal arm position while
someone pushes up or down your hand. The analogous case in
sequence cotnrol can be seen in the "Hierarchy of Perception
and Control" demo at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html
(this demo seems to work best on Macs using Netscape 3.0; I have no
idea what that is about but the demo does depend on timing
and I did tune the programs on a Mac so maybe that's it; but the
Java timing methods are in millisecond so it _should_ be machine
independent).

If you are able to run the demo, just press the "slow" button.
What you will see is a sequence of shapes (squares or circles)
of different sizes. The sequence presented is one of size:
small, medium, large or large, medium, small. The sequence begins
with small, medium, large. If that's the sequence you want to
see then all you have to do is watch; the sequence is in its
reference state. At some point this sequence is disturbed by
the computer; it changes from small, medium, large to large,
medium, small. You can correct for this disturbance (bringing
the sequence back to the reference state -- small, medium, large --
by pressing the mouse button. The mouse button has the same
effect on the sequence as does the disturbance; it toggles the
sequence from what it is to it's "opposite" (small, medium,
large -->large, medium, small and vice versa).

The nifty thing about this demo is that it demonstrates control
of a sequence perception by varying just one, simple lower
level reference (for mouse button position). The time between
the first visible disturbance-produced change in the sequence
and the mouse press that restores the sequence to the reference
state ( small, medium, large, say) is a measure of the reaction
time of the sequence control system. The demo provides a graphical
measure of these reaction times; I get reaction times on the order
of 1.2 seconds on my PowerMac (which I trust because I have
done a fast and dirty validation by stop watch); this means
that my claim (in an earlier post) to have found program control
reaction times of 800 msec must have been based on faulty
memory; the program control reaction times I measures must have
been close to (or above) 2 secs.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

[From Bruce Abbott (991024.1120 EST)]

Rick Marken (991023.1010) --

The nifty thing about this demo is that it demonstrates control
of a sequence perception by varying just one, simple lower
level reference (for mouse button position). The time between
the first visible disturbance-produced change in the sequence
and the mouse press that restores the sequence to the reference
state ( small, medium, large, say) is a measure of the reaction
time of the sequence control system. The demo provides a graphical
measure of these reaction times; I get reaction times on the order
of 1.2 seconds on my PowerMac (which I trust because I have
done a fast and dirty validation by stop watch); this means
that my claim (in an earlier post) to have found program control
reaction times of 800 msec must have been based on faulty
memory; the program control reaction times I measures must have
been close to (or above) 2 secs.

I'd be far more comfortable with this if you would check your earlier data
rather than fudge a new number to make it consistent with the theory.

Regards,

Bruce A.

P.S.: I hope to find time later today to answer the S-R reactions I received
to my earlier post on some of my problems with the hierarchy.

[From Rick Marken (991024.1720)]

Me:

this means that my claim (in an earlier post) to have found
program control reaction times of 800 msec must have been
based on faulty memory; the program control reaction times
I measures must have been close to (or above) 2 secs.

Bruce Abbott (991024.1120 EST)

I'd be far more comfortable with this if you would check
your earlier data rather than fudge a new number to make it
consistent with the theory.

No data was fudged. I just didn't remember the exact reaction
time. What I _do_ remember is that the reaction time to correct
a perception of a sequence was _consistently_ much shorter than
the reaction time to correct a perception of a program. This
result was reported in my "Hierarchical Behavior of Perception"
paper (available at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/papers.html).
See the section called "Levels by Time". The "Hierarchical
Behavior..." paper was written in about 1991 (so the research
was done in about 1990). I think this was one of my best papers
because it might have motivated some interesting research on
control of different types of perceptions but, of course, it
was never accepted for publication.

The exact time it takes to start reacting to a disturbance to
different types of controlled variable is important. But you
can see that the ordinal relationship between these times (if not
the exact absolute reaction times) are consistent with the HPCT
levels if you are able to run the "Hierarchy of Perception and
Control" Java demo at http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/demos.html.
If the program runs smoothly, then when you press "fast" you will
only be able to see (and control) a configuration (square vs circle);
when you press "medium" you will be able to see (and control) _both_
the configuration and the apparent rotational movement of the
configurations (clockwise vs counterclockwise); when you press
"slow" you you will be able to see (and control) the configuration,
apparent movement and sequence (small, medium, large vs large,
medium, small).

You will see that the reaction time to correct the configuration
is consistently faster than the reaction time to correct the
apparent movement which is still faster than the reaction time
to correct the sequence. At least, these are the results I get when
I do it. Perhaps your results will be different -- which would be
interesting. If your results are different, then I would _not_ be
inclined to "fudge" them; I would be inclined to do more research.
Maybe you would even be inclined to _start_ doing some research on
controlled variables?

Bruce Nevin (991024.1911 EDT)

These "control reaction times" could be a useful diagnostic
for validating such relationships in the hierarchy.

You bet yer boots they could!

Shouldn't we verify what the typical times are and use them
as a tool of research?

Absolutely. What's holding "us" back?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/