Neuroscience: Virtual reality explored

CSGnet Archive CSG2016
1

This is an opportunity for PCT to “stand up and shout”, or rather, “to stand up and show” why/how/what in neuroscience — ccontrol and conflict really relevant here.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17899.html

2

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.17.1300)]

···

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

This is an opportunity for PCT to “stand up and shout”, or rather, “to stand up and show” why/how/what in neuroscience — control and conflict really relevantt here.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17899.html

Hi AlexÂ

I can’t seem to get a copy of the article. But it sounds intriguing. You you (or anyone listening) have a copy of the article to distribute (or to summarize for us).Â

Thanks

BestÂ

Rick

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of  Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

3

Paper attached. It is a very short comment. Two comments, in fact. The first one is optimistic; the second one is cautious. Interestingly, it is about VR, so “the loop” is essential —yet Von Uexkull is not even mentioned. The challenge sseems to be how to use VR in simplified virtual environments and still get to high-level cognitive stuff.Â

nature17899.pdf (291 KB)

···

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.17.1300)]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

This is an opportunity for PCT to “stand up and shout”, or rather, “to stand up and show” why/how/what in neuroscience — control andd conflict really relevant here.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17899.html

Hi AlexÂ

I can’t seem to get a copy of the article. But it sounds intriguing. You you (or anyone listening) have a copy of the article to distribute (or to summarize for us).Â

Thanks

BestÂ

Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of  Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

Rick

4

Interestingly they don’t just miss out PCT or Von Uexkull, but they miss any theory at all… So there seems to be a gaping hole for a rejoinder article championing closed loop theories like PCT, like you suggest. Its your field Alex and its a short piece. Letter to the editor maybe?Â
Warren

···

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

Paper attached. It is a very short comment. Two comments, in fact. The first one is optimistic; the second one is cautious. Interestingly, it is about VR, so “the loop” is essential —yet Von Uexkull is nott even mentioned. The challenge seems to be how to use VR in simplified virtual environments and still get to high-level cognitive stuff.Â

–

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.17.1300)]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

This is an opportunity for PCT to “stand up and shout”, or rather, “to stand up and show” why/how/what in neuroscience — control and conflict reeally relevant here.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17899.html

Hi AlexÂ

I can’t seem to get a copy of the article. But it sounds intriguing. You you (or anyone listening) have a copy of the article to distribute (or to summarize for us).Â

Thanks

BestÂ

Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of  Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

Rick

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406
Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

5

[From Bruce Abbott (2016.05.18.1500 EDT)]

Hmmm. I don’t see any problem with the article that would require a rejoinder. The authors are making a point about the validity of using virtual reality to study animal behavior, not offering a theoretical analysis. They do seem to be aware that feedback is involved even if they do express that idea in traditional cognitive terms (information, etc.).

I recall discussing on CSGnet some years ago research being done in Germany on locust flight-control that used a relatively crude version of virtual reality. A wire glued to the insect’s back held the animal centered in a circular visual field as the animal’s wings beat as if in flight. When the visual field was rotated (a disturbance), the locust adjusted is wing-strokes to counteract the “turn.� This produced a torque on the wire, which was sensed and fed back to the display to counter the rotational disturbance. The researchers were well aware the they were observing the operation of a flight control system.

Here’s a YouTube video of something similar from Zurich: https://youtu.be/c45wySQumz0

Bruce

···

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 7:44 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Neuroscience: Virtual reality explored

Interestingly they don’t just miss out PCT or Von Uexkull, but they miss any theory at all… So there seems to be a gaping hole for a rejoinder article championing closed loop theories like PCT, like you suggest. Its your field Alex and its a short piece. Letter to the editor maybe?

Warren

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

Paper attached. It is a very short comment. Two comments, in fact. The first one is optimistic; the second one is cautious. Interestingly, it is about VR, so “the loop” is essential —yet Voon Uexkull is not even mentioned. The challenge seems to be how to use VR in simplified virtual environments and still get to high-level cognitive stuff.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.17.1300)]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

This is an opportunity for PCT to “stand up and shout”, or rather, “to stand up and show” why/how/what in neuroscience — control annd conflict really relevant here.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17899.html

Hi Alex

I can’t seem to get a copy of the article. But it sounds intriguing. You you (or anyone listening) have a copy of the article to distribute (or to summarize for us).

Thanks

Best

Rick

–

Richard S. Marken

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

6

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.18.1425)]

···

Bruce Abbott (2016.05.18.1500 EDT)

Â

BA: Hmmm. I don’t see any problem with the article that would require a rejoinder.Â

RM: I agree. Rather than a rejoinder what is needed is an explanation of why their ideas about the benefits of VR – such as allowing researchers to explicitly define visual cues – miss the point. When you understand that the system under study is a control system, VR allows you to introduce virtual disturbances to the just the perceptual variables that you think may be under control. The way these researchers are using VR they will learn no more about what and how organisms control than they have learned  using their “old-fashioned” non-VR methods.Â

Â

BA: The authors are making a point about the validity of using virtual reality to study animal behavior, not offering a theoretical analysis. They do seem to be aware that feedback is involved even if they do express that idea in traditional cognitive terms (information, etc.).

RM: It’s not enough to know that feedback is “involved” in behavior; you also have to know that the behavior you are looking at is a control process; that the behavior is organized around the control of perceptual variables; and that, therefore, the way to understand that behavior is to do research aimed at determining the perceptual variables that are under control. VR could be an astonishingly powerful tool for doing that kind of research. But if  VR is just used to find connections between visual cues (stimuli) and responses, as it is here, then it is no more powerful than non-VR-based methodologies; just higher tech.Â

BestÂ

Rick

Â

I recall discussing on CSGnet some years ago research being done in Germany on locust flight-control that used a relatively crude version of virtual reality. A wire glued to the insect’s back held the animal centered in a circular visual field as the animal’s wings beat as if in flight. When the visual field was rotated (a disturbance), the locust adjusted is wing-strokes to counteract the “turn.� This produced a torque on the wire, which was sensed and fed back to the display to counter the rotational disturbance. The researchers were well aware the they were observing the operation of a flight control system.

Â

Here’s a YouTube video of something similar from Zurich: https://youtu.be/c45wySQumz0

Â

Bruce

Â

From: Warren Mansell [mailto:wmansell@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 7:44 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Neuroscience: Virtual reality explored

Â

Interestingly they don’t just miss out PCT or Von Uexkull, but they miss any theory at all… So there seems to be a gaping hole for a rejoinder article championing closed loop theories like PCT, like you suggest. Its your field Alex and its a short piece. Letter to the editor maybe?Â

Warren

Â

Â

Â

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

Paper attached. It is a very short comment. Two comments, in fact. The first one is optimistic; the second one is cautious. Interestingly, it is about VR, so “the loop” is essential —yet Von Uexkull is not even mentioned. The challenge seems to be how to use VR in simplified virtual environments and still get to high-level cognitive stuff.Â

Â

Â

Â

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.17.1300)]

Â

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Alex Gomez-Marin agomezmarin@gmail.com wrote:

This is an opportunity for PCT to “stand up and shout”, or rather, “to stand up and show” why/how/what in neuroscience — control and conflict really relevant here.>

Â

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17899.html

Â

Hi AlexÂ

I can’t seem to get a copy of the article. But it sounds intriguing. You you (or anyone listening) have a copy of the article to distribute (or to summarize for us).Â

Â

Thanks

Â

BestÂ

Â

Rick

Â

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of  Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

Â

Â

Â

–

Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Clinical Psychology
School of Psychological Sciences
2nd Floor Zochonis Building
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk
Â
Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589
Â
Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

Â
Advanced notice of a new transdiagnostic therapy manual, authored by Carey, Mansell & Tai - Principles-Based Counselling and Psychotherapy: A Method of Levels Approach

Available Now

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

Â

–

Richard S. MarkenÂ

Author, with Timothy A. Carey, of  Controlling People: The Paradoxical Nature of Being Human.Â

7

I finally took a few minutes to read the reference article. On the
one hand, what a shame! On the other, great recognition of the
potential limitations such research might have.

Failure to understand the PCT nature of behaviour will consistently

produce volumes of virtually (pun intended) useless data. Data that
large numbers of researchers will attempt to explain with
explanations that only fit portions of the observed and reported
data.

Just the idea of 'motor control' leads one into an endless search

for meaning.

And I probably should not have even posted as nothing that I have

said adds to the comments that Rick made.

Best,
Bill

<snip>
···

On 05/18/2016 03:25 PM, Richard Marken
wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2016.05.18.1425)]

                  Bruce

Abbott (2016.05.18.1500 EDT)

                  BA:

Hmmm. I don’t see any problem with the article
that would require a rejoinder.

          RM: I agree. Rather than a rejoinder what is needed is

an explanation of why their ideas about the benefits of VR
– such as allowing researchers to explicitly define
visual cues – miss the point. When you understand that
the system under study is a control system, VR allows you
to introduce virtual disturbances to the just the
perceptual variables that you think may be under control.
The way these researchers are using VR they will learn no
more about what and how organisms control than they have
learned using their “old-fashioned” non-VR methods.

                  BA:

The authors are making a point about the validity
of using virtual reality to study animal behavior,
not offering a theoretical analysis. They do seem
to be aware
that feedback is involved even if they do
express that idea in traditional cognitive terms
(information, etc.).

          RM: It's not enough to know that feedback is "involved"

in behavior; you also have to know that the behavior you
are looking at is a control process; that the behavior is
organized around the control of perceptual variables; and
that, therefore, the way to understand that behavior is to
do research aimed at determining the perceptual variables
that are under control. VR could be an astonishingly
powerful tool for doing that kind of research. But if VR
is just used to find connections between visual cues
(stimuli) and responses, as it is here, then it is no more
powerful than non-VR-based methodologies; just higher
tech.

Best

Rick