PCT-Based Research

Research
1

I am trying to write a paper on the PCT revolution in psychology (and the life sciences in general) and I would like to find as many examples as possible of PCT-based empirical research that has been published in peer reviewer journals. This is research where PCT models are tested against data. It does not include papers which demonstrate PCT principles, even if those demonstrations involve the collection of data, as in Powers’ and my on-line demonstrations. Therefore I can think of only 4 of my own published papers that would qualify:

Marken, R. S. (1986) Perceptual Organization of Behavior: A Hierarchical Control Model of Coordinated Action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 12, 67 - 76.

Marken, R. S. (1991) Degrees of Freedom in Behavior. Psychological Science, 2, 92 - 100.

Shaffer, D. M., Marken, R. S., Dolgov, I. and Maynor, A. B. (2013) Chasin’ Choppers: Using Unpredictable Trajectories to Test Theories of Object Interception, Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 75, 1496- 1506

Shaffer, D. M., Marken, R. S., Dolgov, I. and Maynor, A. B. (2015) Catching objects thrown to oneself: Testing the generality of a control strategy for object interception, Perception,44, 400-409

And only one of Powers’ papers:

Powers, W. T. (1971) A feedback model for behavior: Analysis of a rat experiment, Behavioral Science, 16, 558-563.

I’m posting this to see if I can get some recommendations for other published papers that describe what meets my criterion for what constitutes PCT-based research: research that tests the PCT model against data. My impression is that there are precious few of them. I hope some of you can disabuse me of this impression.

Thanks

Best, Rick

2

Hi Rick,

Great plan.

I think it’s worth noting that convergent, indirect evidence also has a place in judging the validity of a scientific theory, but I agree that it’s critically important to describe and illustrate the methods of the direct tests of PCT.

I have various studies testing predictions of PCT but only a few that test computational models against think real world data with a quantitative index of fit. The only publications of mine that might qualify (but I await your potential resolute exclusion of them) are those studies that Max Parker either ran or reviewed:

Parker, M. G., Tyson, S. F., Weightman, A. P., Abbott, B., Emsley, R., & Mansell, W. (2017). Perceptual control models of pursuit manual tracking demonstrate individual specificity and parameter consistency. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 2523-2537.

Parker, M. G., Weightman, A. P., Tyson, S. F., Abbott, B., & Mansell, W. (2021). Sensorimotor delays in tracking may be compensated by negative feedback control of motion-extrapolated position. Experimental brain research , 239 , 189-204.

Parker, M. G., Willett, A. B., Tyson, S. F., Weightman, A. P., & Mansell, W. (2020). A systematic evaluation of the evidence for perceptual control theory in tracking studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , 112 , 616-633.

Also has wonder whether this model of yours meets the criteria embedded within this study?

3

Continued…

Willett, A. B., Marken, R. S., Parker, M. G., & Mansell, W. (2017). Control blindness: Why people can make incorrect inferences about the intentions of others. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 841-849.

Also, where would you place building effective robots using PCT? Especially where their counteraction of disturbances is quantified and/or compared to others?

4

I think you should include Tom Bourbons demonstrations in your references. I am in Sweden now, so I can cannot access much of anything. Toman did tracking experiments and immediately compared his performance to the performance of the Pct model with conformity in the high 90s. That was published. He repeated the experiments many years later during a training session for Ed Fords teachers, which was not Ed Ford production but a Tom Tim production. I videotaped it. Warren has the video on the hard disk I gave him.
The second performance was also published and is a matter of record. So this was a human control demonstration, followed by a PCT model control demonstration, using the same random generated disturbance.

5

Thanks Warren and Dag. These are all good suggestions but what I really want to find are papers that report the results of research aimed at identifying the perceptual variables around which behavior is organized. Of the 5 papers that I suggested as examples of the kind of research report I’m looking for, only 3 of them really fit the bill perfectly:

  • Shaffer, D. M., Marken, R. S., Dolgov, I. and Maynor, A. B. (2013) Chasin’ Choppers: Using Unpredictable Trajectories to Test Theories of Object Interception, Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 75, 1496- 1506

  • Shaffer, D. M., Marken, R. S., Dolgov, I. and Maynor, A. B. (2015) Catching objects thrown to oneself: Testing the generality of a control strategy for object interception, Perception,44, 400-409

  • Powers, W. T. (1971) A feedback model for behavior: Analysis of a rat experiment, Behavioral Science, 16, 558-563.

All the papers use modeling to get a best estimate of the perceptual variable(s) around with which the observed behavior is organized. The first two papers use modeling to determine that it is vertical optical velocity rather than vertical optical acceleration or Linear Optical Trajectory that is the variable controlled when intercepting moving objects. The third uses modeling to determine that it is shock probability rather inter-shock interval that is controlled in a shock avoidance task.

I don’t think it’s possible to say that the PCT revolution has happened or is even incipient until there is a lot of research of this type – research aimed at determining the CONTROLLED VARIABLES around which various behaviors are organized – being reported in high impact peer-reviewed journals. I’m just trying to get an idea of how much (or how little) of such research is actually being done.