more than resistance to disturbance

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-05_09:06:46 ET]

As we gain a grasp of control theory, we may come to the conclusion that each and every action directly opposes some disturbance in the environment. The ‘disturbance’ may be rather the current incompletion of some higher-level purpose. The following is in Bill’s review of the ms. of Casting Nets and Testing Specimens:

···

In summary, it sounds as if people only tae action when their internal standards are threatened. I think you should make it clear that they also, at the same time, are adjusting internal standards as a way of baringing patterns of perception into being. Many of these variations have no external causes: those are not just reactions to disturbances, but represent creative purposive acts demanded by higher levels in the system for reasons having nothing to do with fending off disturbances: writing a symphony, for example. Watch out for making the model look like a fancy stimulus-response organization that acts only when set into motion by the environment, a la Descartes.

Bill to Phil, 4 December 1987 (*Dialogues *p. 381)

[From Fred Nickols (2018.03.05.0921 ET)]

Perhaps it’s as simple as this: Not all controlled variables are being disturbed all the time. If so, then not all actions directly oppose disturbances.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 9:16 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) CSGNET@listserv.illinois.edu
Subject: more than resistance to disturbance

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-05_09:06:46 ET]

As we gain a grasp of control theory, we may come to the conclusion that each and every action directly opposes some disturbance in the environment. The ‘disturbance’ may be rather the current incompletion of some higher-level purpose. The following is in Bill’s review of the ms. of Casting Nets and Testing Specimens:

In summary, it sounds as if people only tae action when their internal standards are threatened. I think you should make it clear that they also, at the same time, are adjusting internal standards as a way of baringing patterns of perception into being. Many of these variations have no external causes: those are not just reactions to disturbances, but represent creative purposive acts demanded by higher levels in the system for reasons having nothing to do with fending off disturbances: writing a symphony, for example. Watch out for making the model look like a fancy stimulus-response organization that acts only when set into motion by the environment, a la Descartes.

Bill to Phil, 4 December 1987 (*Dialogues *p. 381)

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-03-05_17:16:52 UTC]

One thing that comes to mind is of course learning i.e. reorganizing which changes also the higher references. For me it is a very important and fixed idea that it is not external disturbances
– at least as such – which make us as act i.e. behave but our own goals i.e. references which will change along our action. When we learn to control our reference for seeing us as cultured human and enjoying music by playing from notes we can then learn to control
better by composing our own songs and finally composing symphonies. There will of course be disturbances for example music teachers which will affect our advancing but they cannot cause it wholly from outside.

···

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 4:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: more than resistance to disturbance

[From Fred Nickols (2018.03.05.0921 ET)]

Perhaps it’s as simple as this: Not all controlled variables are being disturbed all the time. If so, then not all actions directly oppose disturbances.

Fred Nickols

From: Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 9:16 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) CSGNET@listserv.illinois.edu
Subject: more than resistance to disturbance

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-05_09:06:46 ET]

As we gain a grasp of control theory, we may come to the conclusion that each and every action directly opposes some disturbance in the environment. The ‘disturbance’ may be rather the current
incompletion of some higher-level purpose. The following is in Bill’s review of the ms. of
Casting Nets and Testing Specimens:

In summary, it sounds as if people only tae action when their internal standards are threatened. I think you should make it clear that they also, at the same time, are adjusting internal standards
as a way of baringing patterns of perception into being. Many of these variations have no external causes: those are not just reactions to disturbances, but represent creative purposive acts demanded by higher levels in the system for reasons having nothing
to do with fending off disturbances: writing a symphony, for example. Watch out for making the model look like a fancy stimulus-response organization that acts only when set into motion by the environment, a la Descartes.

Bill to Phil, 4 December 1987 (*Dialogues
*p. 381)

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-03-05_17:38:00 UTC]

Sorry for a typo, I did not mean that we could control our references. The sentence should have been something like: “ When
we learn to control for seeing us as cultured human beings and enjoying music by playing from notes we can then learn to control still better by composing our own songs and finally composing symphonies.�

···

Eetu

From: Eetu Pikkarainen [mailto:eetu.pikkarainen@oulu.fi]
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 7:26 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: more than resistance to disturbance

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-03-05_17:16:52 UTC]

One thing that comes to mind is of course learning i.e. reorganizing which changes also the higher references. For me it is a very important and fixed idea that it is not external disturbances
– at least as such – which make ue us act i.e. behave but our own goals i.e. references which will change along our action. When we learn to control our reference for seeing us as cultured human and enjoying music by playing from notes we can then learn to control
better by composing our own songs and finally composing symphonies. There will of course be disturbances for example music teachers which will affect our advancing but they cannot cause it wholly from outside.

Eetu

Please, regard all my statements as questions,

no matter how they are formulated.

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:fred@nickols.us]
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 4:23 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: RE: more than resistance to disturbance

[From Fred Nickols (2018.03.05.0921 ET)]

Perhaps it’s as simple as this: Not all controlled variables are being disturbed all the time. If so, then not all actions directly oppose disturbances.

Fred Nickols

From: Bruce Nevin bnhpct@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 9:16 AM
To: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) CSGNET@listserv.illinois.edu
Subject: more than resistance to disturbance

[Bruce Nevin 2018-03-05_09:06:46 ET]

As we gain a grasp of control theory, we may come to the conclusion that each and every action directly opposes some disturbance in the environment. The ‘disturbance’ may be rather the current
incompletion of some higher-level purpose. The following is in Bill’s review of the ms. of
Casting Nets and Testing Specimens:

In summary, it sounds as if people only tae action when their internal standards are threatened. I think you should make it clear that they also, at the same time, are adjusting internal standards
as a way of baringing patterns of perception into being. Many of these variations have no external causes: those are not just reactions to disturbances, but represent creative purposive acts demanded by higher levels in the system for reasons having nothing
to do with fending off disturbances: writing a symphony, for example. Watch out for making the model look like a fancy stimulus-response organization that acts only when set into motion by the environment, a la Descartes.

Bill to Phil, 4 December 1987 (*Dialogues
*p. 381)

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.03.05 1255 EST)]

Bruce Nevin 2018-03-05_09:06:46 ET

BN: … The following is in Bill’s review of the ms. of Casting Nets and Testing Specimens:

In summary, it sounds as if people only tae [take] action when their internal standards are threatened. I think you should make it clear that they also, at the same time, are adjusting internal standards as a way of baringing [bringing] patterns of perception into being. Many of these variations have no external causes: those are not just reactions to disturbances, but represent creative purposive acts demanded by higher levels in the system for reasons having nothing to do with fending off disturbances …

Bill to Phil, 4 December 1987 (*Dialogues *p. 381)

EJ: A distinction I have often used in my own understanding of PCT is that between compensatory tracking versus pursuit tracking. It seems to me that disturbance-resistance is compensatory tracking, i.e., counteracting the effects of forces pushing a perception away from its preferred setting(s). By contrast, (but only a slight contrast), a change in perceptual value simply by virtue of a changing reference standard is an instance of pursuit tracking.

EJ: As I say, the distinction is a small one. It does parallel the understanding that there are two entry points from outside a given control loop, from above and from below. This is to say that there are two key mechanisms – under normal operating conditions – for changing the value of a perceptual signal. One is from above: change the reference signal, and the perception will subsequently follow it, by means of pursuit tracking. The other is from below: insert a disturbance to the perceptual variable, and the perception will start to be affected, until it is counteracted by the effects of compensatory tracking.

EJ: This binary classification leaves aside the effects of reorganization, which can also change perceptual signals, whether by creating new perceptual input functions, or by adjusting gain or slowing or other parameters. It does tend to support the intuition that a paradigmatic way to study perceptual control systems is by way of tracking tasks, whether set up as pursuit or compensatory. This discussion has helped me to see that the former is aligned with reference-following, and the latter aligned with disturbance-resistance.

All the best,

Erling

Confidentiality: * This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*

Please also note: Under 42 CFR part 2 you are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.05.1840 EST)]

[From Erling Jorgensen (2018.03.05 1255 EST)]

Bruce Nevin 2018-03-05_09:06:46 ET

BN: … The following is in Bill’s review of the ms. of Casting Nets and Testing Specimens:

In summary, it sounds as if people only tae [take] action when their internal standards are threatened. I think you should make it clear that they also, at the same time, are adjusting internal standards as a way of baringing [bringing] patterns of perception into being. Many of these variations have no external causes: those are not just reactions to disturbances, but represent creative purposive acts demanded by higher levels in the system for reasons having nothing to do with fending off disturbances …

Bill to Phil, 4 December 1987 (*Dialogues *p. 381)

EJ: A distinction I have often used in my own understanding of PCT is that between compensatory tracking versus pursuit tracking. It seems to me that disturbance-resistance is compensatory tracking, i.e., counteracting the effects of forces pushing a perception away from its preferred setting(s). By contrast, (but only a slight contrast), a change in perceptual value simply by virtue of a changing reference standard is an instance of pursuit tracking.

EJ: As I say, the distinction is a small one. It does parallel the understanding that there are two entry points from outside a given control loop, from above and from below. This is to say that there are two key mechanisms – under normal operating conditions – for changing the value of a perceptual signal. One is from above: change the reference signal, and the perception will subsequently follow it, by means of pursuit tracking. The other is from below: insert a disturbance to the perceptual variable, and the perception will start to be affected, until it is counteracted by the effects of compensatory tracking.

EJ: This binary classification leaves aside the effects of reorganization, which can also change perceptual signals, whether by creating new perceptual input functions, or by adjusting gain or slowing or other parameters. It does tend to support the intuition that a paradigmatic way to study perceptual control systems is by way of tracking tasks, whether set up as pursuit or compensatory. This discussion has helped me to see that the former is aligned with reference-following, and the latter aligned with disturbance-resistance.

I like the clarity of your distinction, so I hope what I am about to say doesn’t muddy the waters too much!

When I worked in the Glass Science department at the Owens-Illinois Glass Co.’s Technical Center back in the early 70s, we had a small programmable glass furnace that employed a PID (proportional-integral-derivative) controller. One could program the reference temperature of the PID to follow a given profile over time. As the reference temperature changed, the PID controller varied the electrical power to the furnace to keep the error between the reference value and sensed temperature small. In this way the actual furnace temperature “pursued” the changing reference value.

If the program called for a steady temperature, then the controller would defend against disturbances to that temperature (such as the introduction of a cold sample). Operated in this way, the controller performed compensatory tracking. But note that such disturbances could occur during pursuit tracking as well, and the controller again would try to compensate for them while continuing to pursue the changing reference level.

But one does not necessarily have to conceive pursuit tracking as necessarily involving a changing reference. In the TrackAnalyze demo provided with LCS III, an onscreen target changes position smoothly but unpredictably during the experimental run, and the participant’s job is to keep the cursor aligned with the target. Bill Powers stated that the reference value to be attained in this task is zero difference between target and cursor position; the participant is asked to maintain this reference value during the run. To keep the difference at zero while the target moves, one must of course pursue the target with the cursor. The movements of the target can be viewed as disturbances to target position. The difference between this task and the usual compensatory tracking task comes down to whether the disturbance acts on the position of the target or on the position of the cursor. The actual control system involved is the same either way. But if all we are doing in this task is to keep the difference between the two positions at zero against disturbances, then this is really no different than the usual compensatory tracking task!

A way to recover your nice distinction between pursuit and compensatory tracking is to suggest that the instructions to the participant are effectively to set her internal reference value for the cursor to the position of the target, wherever that may be at any given moment.

So why did Bill suggest treating the reference as a zero difference between target and cursor? I suspect it is because the target seen on the screen is “out there” in the environment, whereas reference signals are supposed to be inside the organism. If you say that the current target position is to be treated as the reference position, then this makes it seem (incorrectly) that the reference is part of the external environment rather than inside the participant. By specifying the reference as “zero difference,” Bill made it clear that the reference is not external. Yet it makes no difference to the analysis which description one adopts – zero difference or target position, and by adopting target position as the reference, one makes it clear that the cursor is then “pursuing” a moving target (actually an internal reference set to target position) and not merely compensating for a nonzero difference.

Bruce

[Rick Marken 2018-03-06_16:36:35]

···

Erling Jorgensen (2018.03.05 1255 EST) –

BN:Â … The following is in Bill’s review of the ms. of Casting Nets and Testing Specimens:

In summary, it sounds as if people only tae [take]Â action when their internal standards are threatened. I think you should make it clear that they also, at the same time, are adjusting internal standards as a way of baringing [bringing]Â patterns of perception into being. Many of these variations have no external causes: those are not just reactions to disturbances, but represent creative purposive acts demanded by higher levels in the system for reasons having nothing to do with fending off disturbances …Â

Bill to Phil, 4 December 1987 (*Dialogues *p. 381)Â

EJ: A distinction I have often used in my own understanding of PCT is that between compensatory tracking versus pursuit tracking. It seems to me that disturbance-resistance is compensatory tracking, i.e., counteracting the effects of forces pushing a perception away from its preferred setting(s). By contrast, (but only a slight contrast), a change in perceptual value simply by virtue of a changing reference standard is an instance of pursuit tracking.Â

RM: I can see why you think this distinction corresponds to the distinction between actions that resist disturbances to internal standards (reference states of controlled variables) and actions that result from adjustment of the internal standards themselves. But, in fact, both compensatory and pursuit tracking are examples of situations where actions resist disturbances to internal standards that are fixed, not adjusted. The internal standard in both cases is a reference for the distance between cursor and target to be zero.

RM: I think a clear distinction between actions that resist disturbances and those that result from adjustment of internal standards can be made with my Mind Reading demo (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Mindread.html
). If you intentionally move one of the avatars around the screen in some arbitrary trajectory (ignoring the donuts so that movements are not made to avoid them - that would be disturbance resistance)Â then the mouse movements that move the avatar are actions that result from temporal adjustments of your internal standard for the position of the avatar. At the same time your mouse movements are also actions that resist disturbances to the positions of the avatar that are specified by the variations in your internal standard.

RM: The Mind Reading program illustrates the fact that the actions (o) that keep a controlled variable under control are proportional to variations in both the reference for (r) and the disturbances to (d) the state of that variable. In the simplest case:

o = r - d (1)

RM: In the Mind Reading demo, o is the mouse movements, r is the reference for the position of the intentionally moved avatar and d is the computer generated disturbance to the position of the avatar. If r  is constant, so that the avatar is held in a fixed position on the screen, then o will be an action that resists disturbances (-d). If r is variable and the disturbances are constant, then o will be an action that results only from adjustments in your internal standard (r) for the position of the avatar. In most everyday behavior, actions are are the result of both adjustments in internal standards and disturbance and disturbance resistance, per Eq. 1. This means that our actions are always autonomous (the result of secular variations in internal standards) and determined by circumstance (an automatic “response” to disturbances). In our book “Controlling People” we call this the “law of relative autonomy”.Â

Best

Rick

EJ: As I say, the distinction is a small one. It does parallel the understanding that there are two entry points from outside a given control loop, from above and from below. This is to say that there are two key mechanisms – under normal operating conditions – for changing the value of a perceptual signal. One is from above: change the reference signal, and the perception will subsequently follow it, by means of pursuit tracking. The other is from below: insert a disturbance to the perceptual variable, and the perception will start to be affected, until it is counteracted by the effects of compensatory tracking.Â

EJ: This binary classification leaves aside the effects of reorganization, which can also change perceptual signals, whether by creating new perceptual input functions, or by adjusting gain or slowing or other parameters. It does tend to support the intuition that a paradigmatic way to study perceptual control systems is by way of tracking tasks, whether set up as pursuit or compensatory. This discussion has helped me to see that the former is aligned with reference-following, and the latter aligned with disturbance-resistance.Â

All the best,Â

Erling

Confidentiality: * This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged and confidential under HIPAA, 42CFR Part 2, and/or other applicable State and Federal laws. If you are not the addressee, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the addressee, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation.*

Please also note: * Under 42 CFR part 2 you are prohibited from making any further disclosure of information that identifies an individual as having or having had a substance use disorder unless it is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR Part 2.*


Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Rick Marken 2018-03-07_13:34:00]

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.05.1840 EST)]

Â

BA: A way to recover your [Erling's] nice distinction between pursuit and compensatory tracking is to suggest that the instructions to the participant are effectively to set her internal reference value for the cursor to the position of the target, wherever that may be at any given moment.

Â

BA: So why did Bill suggest treating the reference as a zero difference between target and cursor? I suspect it is because the target seen on the screen is “out thereâ€? in the environment, whereas reference signals are supposed to be inside the organism. If you say that the current target position is to be treated as the reference position, then this makes it seem (incorrectly) that the reference is part of the external environment rather than inside the participant. By specifying the reference as “zero difference,â€? Bill made it clear that the reference is not external. Yet it makes no difference to the analysis which description one adopts – zero difference or target position, and by adopting target position as the reference, one makes it clear that the cursor is then “pursuingâ€? a moving target (actually an internal reference set to target position) and not merely compensating for a nonzero difference.

RM: It's true that having the reference be "zero difference" or "position of target" makes no difference to the analysis. And you are basically correct about why Bill selected "zero difference " rather than "position of the target" as the reference; to some extent it was to make it clear that the reference is not external to the participant. But I think Bill selected "zero difference" for more than just clarity. I think he selected it because he couldn't think of a way to model pursuit tracking with a "position of target" reference without having the actual position of the target in some way be the cause of that reference. In other words, I think Bill couldn't think of a way to make a model of pursuit tracking that was a control of input model rather than a kind of hybrid cause-effect, control of input model by having the reference be "position of target" rather than "zero difference". I can't think of a way to do it either. Can you?Â
BestÂ
Rick

···

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.0800 EST)]

[Rick Marken 2018-03-07_13:34:00]

   [From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.05.1840 EST)]

BA: A way to recover your [Erling’s] nice distinction between pursuit and compensatory tracking is to suggest that the instructions to the participant are effectively to set her internal reference value for the cursor to the position of the target, wherever that may be at any given moment.

BA: So why did Bill suggest treating the reference as a zero difference between target and cursor? I suspect it is because the target seen on the screen is “out there� in the environment, whereas reference signals are supposed to be inside the organism. If you say that the current target position is to be treated as the reference position, then this makes it seem (incorrectly) that the reference is part of the external environment rather than inside the participant. By specifying the reference as “zero difference,� Bill made it clear that the reference is not external. Yet it makes no difference to the analysis which description one adopts – zero difference or target position, and by adopting target position as the reference, one makes it clear that the cursor is then “pursuing� a moving target (actually an internal reference set to target position) and not merely compensating for a nonzero difference.

RM: It’s true that having the reference be “zero difference” or “position of target” makes no difference to the analysis. And you are basically correct about why Bill selected "zero difference " rather than “position of the target” as the reference; to some extent it was to make it clear that the reference is not external to the participant. But I think Bill selected “zero difference” for more than just clarity. I think he selected it because he couldn’t think of a way to model pursuit tracking with a “position of target” reference without having the actual position of the target in some way be the cause of that reference. In other words, I think Bill couldn’t think of a way to make a model of pursuit tracking that was a control of input model rather than a kind of hybrid cause-effect, control of input model by having the reference be “position of target” rather than “zero difference”. I can’t think of a way to do it either. Can you?

If Bill thought this way, he was being logically inconsistent. In compensatory tracking (as in pursuit tracking), the participant is instructed to keep the cursor aligned with the target. The model used to account for the participant’s actions during the experimental run assumes that the participant is following instructions and using the target position as the reference position.  Bill didn’t seem to have a problem using “position of target� as the reference position in this, compensatory tracking, case. He didn’t seem to think that this would result in “having the actual position of the target in some way be the cause of that reference.� Yet there is no difference between this and pursuit tracking: the target position is where the participant is instructed set her internal reference in either case.

In either case we can fit the participant’s tracking data to a control model and find the best-fitting value for the participant’s internal reference. If the participant was controlling reasonably well and following instructions, the fitted position will be close to the instructed position. If the participant chose to use some other reference – say, 1 cm below  tthe target – then the fitted reference position will reveal this facct, and also demonstrate that the reference position was under the internal control of the participant and not determined in stimulus-response fashion by the target’s on-screen position.

So the “problem� that you (and, you imagine, Bill) could not think of a way to solve simply does not exist. In compensatory and pursuit tracking alike, the participant’s reference level for target position is set internally. If the experimenter instructs the participant to set this reference to the on-screen position of the target, there is no necessary implication whatsoever that the on-screen target is acting as a stimulus to which the setting of the internal reference to that position is a response.

Bruce

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.0800 EST)]

···

[Rick
Marken 2018-03-07_13:34:00]

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.05.1840 EST)]

                    BA:

A way to recover your [Erling’s] nice
distinction between pursuit and compensatory
tracking is to suggest that the instructions to
the participant are effectively to set her
internal reference value for the cursor to the
position of the target, wherever that may be at
any given moment.

                    BA:

So why did Bill suggest treating the reference
as a zero difference between target and
cursor? …

          RM: It's true that having the reference be "zero

difference" or “position of target” makes no difference to
the analysis. And you are basically correct about why Bill
selected "zero difference " rather than “position of the
target” as the reference; to some
extent it was to make it clear that the reference is not
external to the participant…

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.1145 EST)]

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.08.10.09]

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.0800 EST)]

[Rick Marken 2018-03-07_13:34:00]

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.05.1840 EST)]

BA: A way to recover your [Erling’s] nice distinction between pursuit and compensatory tracking is to suggest that the instructions to the participant are effectively to set her internal reference value for the cursor to the position of the target, wherever that may be at any given moment.

BA: So why did Bill suggest treating the reference as a zero difference between target and cursor? …

RM: It’s true that having the reference be “zero difference” or “position of target” makes no difference to the analysis. And you are basically correct about why Bill selected "zero difference " rather than “position of the target” as the reference; to some extent it was to make it clear that the reference is not external to the participant…

I must confess to being quite puzzled about this exchange and its predecessors. Hitherto, for many years I have thought it was generally accepted that the perceived target position and the perceived cursor position were inputs to a relationship perception, which was controlled with a reference value of zero (as Bill is quoted as saying). At the lower level, the cursor position is the only controlled perception that can affect the value of the relationship perception, so the relationship control output has to keep changing the cursor position reference value to match the perceived target position. Why has this now come up in the form of a puzzle? And what does it have to do with internal or external reference values?

For my part, Martin, my initial post was to slightly clarify Eetu’s distinction between compensatory tracking and pursuit tracking to note that the position of the cursor can be affected by disturbances (although in our demos this isn’t explicitly done; what disturbances there are to cursor position are due to factors such as participant muscle twitches and slip-stick effects in the mouse).

As for pursuit tracking being an example of relationship control, yes, that is true, but so is compensatory tracking (cursor position is defended relative to a target position). In either case the task is to minimize the difference between perceived target and cursor positions.  This is not a proper level of control at which to distinguish pursuit tracking from compensatory tracking, because it doesn’t distinguish between pursuit and compensation.  Rather, the proper level is at the level below, which receives the reference value from the relationship control system. The relationship control system sets the reference for where the cursor should be. If the relationship control system’s reference is for zero difference between target and cursor position, the reference input to the lower-level system will be set to where the target is currently perceived to be. In pursuit tracking, the target moves continually and the cursor is made to follow the changing reference position, thus “pursuing� the target. In compensatory tracking, the target position is fixed and, if the relationship control system’s reference is zero difference between target and cursor positions, then the reference for cursor position will be set to the target’s fixed position and the task is to keep it there by compensating for disturbances to that position.

As for any puzzles and the issue of external versus internal references, you will have to ask Rick about that; it’s his perceived problem, not one I see.

Bruce

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-03-08_16:53:15 UTC]

Bruce, I think you should have meant Erling’s distinction. I could not have done that
:blush: But I have read (also) this thread with interest.

···

Eetu

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.1145 EST)]

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.08.10.09]

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.0800 EST)]

[Rick Marken 2018-03-07_13:34:00]

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.05.1840 EST)]

BA: A way to recover your [Erling’s] nice distinction between pursuit and compensatory tracking is to suggest that the instructions to the participant are effectively to set her internal reference value for the cursor to the position of the
target, wherever that may be at any given moment.

BA: So why did Bill suggest treating the reference as a zero difference between target and cursor? …

RM: It’s true that having the reference be “zero difference” or “position of target” makes no difference to the analysis. And you are basically correct about why Bill selected "zero difference " rather than “position of the target” as the reference; to some
extent it was to make it clear that the reference is not external to the participant…

I must confess to being quite puzzled about this exchange and its predecessors. Hitherto, for many years I have thought it was generally accepted that the perceived target position and the perceived cursor position were inputs to a relationship perception,
which was controlled with a reference value of zero (as Bill is quoted as saying). At the lower level, the cursor position is the only controlled perception that can affect the value of the relationship perception, so the relationship control output has to
keep changing the cursor position reference value to match the perceived target position. Why has this now come up in the form of a puzzle? And what does it have to do with internal or external reference values?

For my part, Martin, my initial post was to slightly clarify Eetu’s distinction between compensatory tracking and pursuit tracking to note that the position of the
cursor can be affected by disturbances (although in our demos this isn’t explicitly done; what disturbances there are to cursor position are due to factors such as participant muscle twitches and slip-stick effects in the mouse).

As for pursuit tracking being an example of relationship control, yes, that is true, but so is compensatory tracking (cursor position is defended
relative to a target position). In either case the task is to minimize the difference between perceived target and cursor positions. This is not a proper level of control at which to distinguish pursuit tracking from compensatory tracking, because
it doesn’t distinguish between pursuit and compensation. Rather, the proper level is at the level below, which receives the reference value from the relationship control system. The relationship control system sets the reference for where the cursor should
be. If the relationship control system’s reference is for zero difference between target and cursor position, the reference input to the lower-level system will be set to where the target is currently perceived to be. In pursuit tracking, the target moves
continually and the cursor is made to follow the changing reference position, thus “pursuing� the target. In compensatory tracking, the target position is fixed and, if the relationship control system’s reference is zero difference between target and cursor
positions, then the reference for cursor position will be set to the target’s fixed position and the task is to keep it there by compensating for disturbances to that position.

As for any puzzles and the issue of external versus internal references, you will have to ask Rick about that; it’s his perceived problem, not one I see.

Bruce

[Rick Marken 2018-03-08_10:29:16]

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.0800 EST)]

Â

RM: It's true that having the reference be "zero difference" or "position of target" makes no difference to the analysis. And you are basically correct about why Bill selected "zero difference " rather than "position of the target" as the reference; to some extent it was to make it clear that the reference is not external to the participant. But I think Bill selected "zero difference" for more than just clarity. I think he selected it because he couldn't think of a way to model pursuit tracking with a "position of target" reference without having the actual position of the target in some way be the cause of that reference. In other words, I think Bill couldn't think of a way to make a model of pursuit tracking that was a control of input model rather than a kind of hybrid cause-effect, control of input model by having the reference be "position of target" rather than "zero difference". I can't think of a way to do it either. Can you?Â

Â

BA: If Bill thought this way, he was being logically inconsistent. In compensatory tracking (as in pursuit tracking), the participant is instructed to keep the cursor aligned with the target. The model used to account for the participant’s actions during the experimental run assumes that the participant is following instructions and using the target position as the reference position. Bill didn’t seem to have a problem using “position of target� as the reference position in this, compensatory tracking, case. He didn’t seem to think that this would result in “having the actual position of the target in some way be the cause of that reference.� Yet there is no difference between this and pursuit tracking: the target position is where the participant is instructed set her internal reference in either case.

RM: Models of both compensatory and pursuit tracking assume that the participant is controlling a perception of the distance between target and cursor (t - c), acting to keep it in a reference state, r, of 0. The only difference between the models is that target position, t, is constant in compensatory tracking and variable in pursuit tracking. But in both cases, both t and c are variables in the environment and the perception that is controlled, f(t-c), is a function of these variables. And this perception is controlled relative to an r of 0.Â
RM: Your verbal description of the model of pursuit tracking implies that what is controlled is the position of the cursor, c, rather than the distance between cursor and target (c-t), and c is controlled relative to a reference, r, that varies exactly as the target, t, varies. My point is that it is difficult to imagine how that could happen in reality. We can certainly write a model that works that way because we, as the experimenters, know exactly how t varies in a pursuit tracking task and we can use the stored variations in t as the variable r in our simulations and the model will work just fine. My point was that I can think of no plausible way for the variations in t in a pursuit tracking task to instantaneously become variations in r in the participant doing the task.Â
RM: Also, I don't think the pursuit tracking task, regardless of how modeled, is a good example of the kind of secular variation in references that  Bill described to Phil in the quote that Bruce N. posted that started this thread. The relevant quote was:Â
Â

BP: In summary, it sounds as if people only take action when their internal standards are threatened. I think you should make it clear that they also, at the same time, are adjusting internal standards as a way of bringing patterns of perception into being. Many of these variations have no external causes: those are not just reactions to disturbances, but represent creative purposive acts demanded by higher levels in the system for reasons having nothing to do with fending off disturbances: writing a symphony, for example. Watch out for making the model look like a fancy stimulus-response organization that acts only when set into motion by the environment, a la Descartes. [emphasis mine]

RM: The cursor movements in a pursuit tracking task are not creative, purposive acts demanded by higher levels in the system for reasons having nothing to do with fending off disturbances. Rather, these cursor movements are specifically made to compensate for the disturbance created by movements of the target. That's why I suggested arbitrary movements of an avatar in my Mind Reading demo as an example of purposive acts resulting strictly from secular ("creative") variations in the reference for the position of the avatar, for reasons having nothing to do with fending off disturbances.Â
BestÂ
Rick
 >

···

Â

In either case we can fit the participant’s tracking data to a control model and find the best-fitting value for the participant’s internal reference. If the participant was controlling reasonably well and following instructions, the fitted position will be close to the instructed position. If the participant chose to use some other reference – say, 1 cm bbelow  the target – then the fitted reference position will revveal this fact, and also demonstrate that the reference position was under the internal control of the participant and not determined in stimulus-response fashion by the target’s on-screen position.

Â

So the “problem� that you (and, you imagine, Bill) could not think of a way to solve simply does not exist. In compensatory and pursuit tracking alike, the participant’s reference level for target position is set internally. If the experimenter instructs the participant to set this reference to the on-screen position of the target, there is no necessary implication whatsoever that the on-screen target is acting as a stimulus to which the setting of the internal reference to that position is a response.

Â

Bruce

--
Richard S. MarkenÂ
"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[From Bruce
Abbott (2018.03.08.1145 EST)]

      [Martin

Taylor 2018.03.08.10.09]

        As for pursuit tracking being an

example of relationship control, yes, that is true, but so
is compensatory tracking (cursor position is defended relative
to a target position).

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.1705 EST)]

[Eetu Pikkarainen 2018-03-08_16:53:15 UTC]

Bruce, I think you should have meant Erling’s distinction. I could not have done that :blush: But I have read (also) this thread with interest.

Eetu

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.1145 EST)]

[Martin Taylor 2018.03.08.10.09]

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.08.0800 EST)]

[Rick Marken 2018-03-07_13:34:00]

[From Bruce Abbott (2018.03.05.1840 EST)]

BA: A way to recover your [Erling’s] nice distinction between pursuit and compensatory tracking is to suggest that the instructions to the participant are effectively to set her internal reference value for the cursor to the position of the target, wherever that may be at any given moment.

Oops, I think my mental index misfired when accessing names beginning with E. But thanks for your interest, Eetu!

Bruce