Review of Hommel's Theory of Event Coding

Hi Bruce, I actually sent this round last year…

···

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

For your interest CSGers!

http://bernhard-hommel.eu/Action%20control%20according%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20event%20coding.pdf

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

[From Rick Marken (2016.09.26.0800)]

···

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: So Rick, does that mean we need to make a big effort to explain why control is so important to understand? Also, considering that most people don’t have an accurate operational definition of what control actually is, they will often think they already understand control when they don’t. So, I am not sure whether making this statement is the key to disseminating PCT, are you?

RM: I see I replied to this TEC thread back in December 2015. I agree now with what I said back then. But did I ever answer your last question here? If not, let me say that I think it is absolutely essential to make it clear that PCT is a theory that explains the phenomenon of control as it is seen in the behavior of living systems. So the first thing to teach people about PCT is the nature of the phenomenon that it was designed to explain – as Tim and I do in “Controlling People”. This should make it clear that PCT is incompatible with all other theories of behavior, no matter how superficially similar to PCT these theories might seem, to the extent that these other theories don’t explain the controlling done by living systems. Disseminating PCT without making it clear that PCT is an explanation of the controlling done by living systems isjust selling snake oil to cure an ailment that doesn’t exist. And I’ve really had quite enough of snake oil salesmen.

Best

Rick

On 5 Dec 2015, at 01:02, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2015.12.04.1700)]

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Text version…

RM: Thanks, Warren. This is an excellent review of “Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding)” by Bernhard Hommel. I particularly liked your list of “limitations” of the TEC theory. The first two in particular made me realize that the difference between TEC theory and PCT results from the fact that they are explanations of different phenomena, not different explanations of the same phenomenon. TEC is a an explanation of behavior as generated output (action); PCT is an explanation of behavior as control. I realized this after reading the first two limitations of TEC theory that you point out in your review:

(a) perception is still associated with specific actions

(b) the process of acting against disturbances through negative feedback control is not specified

RM: These are limitations only if the phenomenon TEC were trying to explain was control: the production of consistent results in a disturbance prone environment. A theory that explains control has to include an explanation of how the behaving system manages to vary its actions appropriately in order to produce such consistent results. Such consistency – the fact that the results of action are kept in reference states – can’t be explained by a theory that has inputs (perceptions of the state of the controlled result) associated with specific actions. A theory that explains control will inevitably end up with the same input
s (perceptions) often being associated with different actions-- so the theory will not have limitation (a) – and this will occur as part of the process of acting against the effect of disturbances to the state of the controlled result – so the theory will not have limitation (b).

RM: This is why people with theories that seem somewhat similar to PCT are rarely (actually, never) moved to"get on board" with PCT. PCT is the only theory around that explains the controlling done by living systems. All other theories – equilibrium theories, self-regulation theories, manual control theories, whatever --are trying to explain something other than control. What distinguishes PCT from all other theories of behavior is the phenomenon it explains – control – not the theory itself.

Best

Rick

In contrast, in PCT:

(a) any action is carried out to control perception but it is not tied to a specific perception; in PCT behaviour is defined by the perceptual variables it controls at various levels in a hierachy. Any regularity we see in behaviour is because of the perceptual (kinaesthetic, proprioceptive, visual, etc) variabkes that are being controlled as that behaviour is observed.

(b) any observable action is a property of the environment as well as the individual - when one opens a door the weight, angle etc of the door are a component of how that action is observed. In order to achieve controlled perception, feedback from ongoing current perception must be corrected online and negative feedback contro
l is the process through which this occurs.

(c) PCT includes a putative 11 levels of perception. Going up the hierarchy these levels go from proximal to distal but the 11 levels provides a much more refined, flexible architecture

(d) PCT describes how mental simulation can operate through a specific recurrent link within a level in the hierarchy and describes how the phenomenology and content of the mental simulation maps neatly onto the specific levels at which the recurrent link occurs.

(e) PCT provides mathematical specification and computer models of how learning occurs within the architecture

(f) PCT is a theory to build functional models, as in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering) one tests the validity of the theory through developments in technology.

I hope this sparks some interest and further discussion!

All the best,

Warren


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

For your interest CSGers!

http://bernhard-hommel.eu/Action%20control%20according%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20event%20coding.pdf

<IMG_0591.PNG>


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

Richard S. Marken

“The childhood of the human race is far from over. We
have a long way to go before most people will understand that what they do for
others is just as important to their well-being as what they do for
themselves.” – William T. Powers

For your interest CSGers!

http://bernhard-hommel.eu/Action%20control%20according%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20event%20coding.pdf

IMG_0591.PNG

Text version…

I have read your recent article.

On the positive side, it is nice to see the convergence of opinion regarding the difficulties of the standard stimulus-response approach to psychology and in relation to this, how flawed most psychology studies are with regard to the assumption that the line of cause and effect starts with then stimulus. In relation to this, we agree on the ideomotor principle that the sensory consequences of action are critical to defining action, and in turn characterising the nature of a stimulus. The common coding of perception and action also aligns with PCT. So there is much to share and potentially collaborate on.

On the other hand, TEC seems to provide only a limited account of how an alternative architecture actually works, because:

(a) perception is still associated with specific actions

(b) the process of acting against disturbances through negative feedback control is not specified

(c) the levels are divided between distal and proximal rather than specifying the multiple levels of perceptual code likely to be required for any non-simple skill

(d) the architectural components to enable planning and imagination are not described, just assumed

(e) the learning algorithm to form the representations described is not specified

(f) the theory itself is not specified in enough detail to build working models (prototypes) of individuals to test the theory most robustly

In contrast, in PCT:

(a) any action is carried out to control perception but it is not tied to a specific perception; in PCT behaviour is defined by the perceptual variables it controls at various levels in a hierachy. Any regularity we see in behaviour is because of the perceptual (kinaesthetic, proprioceptive, visual, etc) variabkes that are being controlled as that behaviour is observed.

(b) any observable action is a property of the environment as well as the individual - when one opens a door the weight, angle etc of the door are a component of how that action is observed. In order to achieve controlled perception, feedback from ongoing current perception must be corrected online and negative feedback control is the process through which this occurs.

(c) PCT includes a putative 11 levels of perception. Going up the hierarchy these levels go from proximal to distal but the 11 levels provides a much more refined, flexible architecture

(d) PCT describes how mental simulation can operate through a specific recurrent link within a level in the hierarchy and describes how the phenomenology and content of the mental simulation maps neatly onto the specific levels at which the recurrent link occurs.

(e) PCT provides mathematical specification and computer models of how learning occurs within the architecture

(f) PCT is a theory to build functional models, as in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering) one tests the validity of the theory through developments in technology.

I hope this sparks some interest and further discussion!

All the best,

Warren

···

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

For your interest CSGers!

http://bernhard-hommel.eu/Action%20control%20according%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20event%20coding.pdf

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

[Bruce Nevin (2015.12.04 15:24 ET)]

(Warren Mansell Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:50 AM)

Thanks for this. (And thanks, too, for the text version. I saved the graphic image to read in a separate viewer at appropriate size.)

Unclear in what sense the proposed PCT levels go from proximal to distal. Intensity of light from a local led vs that from a distant star seem to me indistinguishable, and in what (commensurate!) sense can a system concept, principle, or program be either distal or proximal?

Maybe it will be more clear when I read how Hommel uses the distal/proximal dimension.

···

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Text version…

I have read your recent article.

On the positive side, it is nice to see the convergence of opinion regarding the difficulties of the standard stimulus-response approach to psychology and in relation to this, how flawed most psychology studies are with regard to the assumption that the line of cause and effect starts with then stimulus. In relation to this, we agree on the ideomotor principle that the sensory consequences of action are critical to defining action, and in turn characterising the nature of a stimulus. The common coding of perception and action also aligns with PCT. So there is much to share and potentially collaborate on.

On the other hand, TEC seems to provide only a limited account of how an alternative architecture actually works, because:

(a) perception is still associated with specific actions

(b) the process of acting against disturbances through negative feedback control is not specified

(c) the levels are divided between distal and proximal rather than specifying the multiple levels of perceptual code likely to be required for any non-simple skill

(d) the architectural components to enable planning and imagination are not described, just assumed

(e) the learning algorithm to form the representations described is not specified

(f) the theory itself is not specified in enough detail to build working models (prototypes) of individuals to test the theory most robustly

In contrast, in PCT:

(a) any action is carried out to control perception but it is not tied to a specific perception; in PCT behaviour is defined by the perceptual variables it controls at various levels in a hierachy. Any regularity we see in behaviour is because of the perceptual (kinaesthetic, proprioceptive, visual, etc) variabkes that are being controlled as that behaviour is observed.

(b) any observable action is a property of the environment as well as the individual - when one opens a door the weight, angle etc of the door are a component of how that action is observed. In order to achieve controlled perception, feedback from ongoing current perception must be corrected online and negative feedback control is the process through which this occurs.

(c) PCT includes a putative 11 levels of perception. Going up the hierarchy these levels go from proximal to distal but the 11 levels provides a much more refined, flexible architecture

(d) PCT describes how mental simulation can operate through a specific recurrent link within a level in the hierarchy and describes how the phenomenology and content of the mental simulation maps neatly onto the specific levels at which the recurrent link occurs.

(e) PCT provides mathematical specification and computer models of how learning occurs within the architecture

(f) PCT is a theory to build functional models, as in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering) one tests the validity of the theory through developments in technology.

I hope this sparks some interest and further discussion!

All the best,

Warren

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

For your interest CSGers!

http://bernhard-hommel.eu/Action%20control%20according%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20event%20coding.pdf


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

[From Rick Marken (2015.12.04.1700)]

···

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Text version…

RM: Thanks, Warren. This is an excellent review of “Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding)” by Bernhard Hommel. I particularly liked your list of “limitations” of the TEC theory. The first two in particular made me realize that the difference between TEC theory and PCT results from the fact that they are explanations of different phenomena, not different explanations of the same phenomenon. TEC is a an explanation of behavior as generated output (action); PCT is an explanation of behavior as control. I realized this after reading the first two limitations of TEC theory that you point out in your review:

(a) perception is still associated with specific actions

(b) the process of acting against disturbances through negative feedback control is not specified

RM: These are limitations only if the phenomenon TEC were trying to explain was control: the production of consistent results in a disturbance prone environment. A theory that explains control has to include an explanation of how the behaving system manages to vary its actions appropriately in order to produce such consistent results. Such consistency – the fact that the results of action are kept in reference states – can’t be explained by a theory that has inputs (perceptions of the state of the controlled result) associated with specific actions. A theory that explains control will inevitably end up with the same inputs (perceptions) often being associated with different actions-- so the theory will not have limitation (a) – and this will occur as part of the process of acting against the effect of disturbances to the state of the controlled result – so the theory will not have limitation (b).

RM: This is why people with theories that seem somewhat similar to PCT are rarely (actually, never) moved to"get on board" with PCT. PCT is the only theory around that explains the controlling done by living systems. All other theories – equilibrium theories, self-regulation theories, manual control theories, whatever --are trying to explain something other than control. What distinguishes PCT from all other theories of behavior is the phenomenon it explains – control – not the theory itself.

Best

Rick

In contrast, in PCT:

(a) any action is carried out to control perception but it is not tied to a specific perception; in PCT behaviour is defined by the perceptual variables it controls at various levels in a hierachy. Any regularity we see in behaviour is because of the perceptual (kinaesthetic, proprioceptive, visual, etc) variabkes that are being controlled as that behaviour is observed.

(b) any observable action is a property of the environment as well as the individual - when one opens a door the weight, angle etc of the door are a component of how that action is observed. In order to achieve controlled perception, feedback from ongoing current perception must be corrected online and negative feedback control is the process through which this occurs.

(c) PCT includes a putative 11 levels of perception. Going up the hierarchy these levels go from proximal to distal but the 11 levels provides a much more refined, flexible architecture

(d) PCT describes how mental simulation can operate through a specific recurrent link within a level in the hierarchy and describes how the phenomenology and content of the mental simulation maps neatly onto the specific levels at which the recurrent link occurs.

(e) PCT provides mathematical specification and computer models of how learning occurs within the architecture

(f) PCT is a theory to build functional models, as in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering) one tests the validity of the theory through developments in technology.

I hope this sparks some interest and further discussion!

All the best,

Warren


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

For your interest CSGers!

http://bernhard-hommel.eu/Action%20control%20according%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20event%20coding.pdf


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

So Rick, does that mean we need to make a big effort to explain why control is so important to understand? Also, considering that most people don’t have an accurate operational definition of what control actually is, they will often think they already understand control when they don’t. So, I am not sure whether making this statement is the key to disseminating PCT, are you?

Warren

···

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Text version…

RM: Thanks, Warren. This is an excellent review of “Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding)” by Bernhard Hommel. I particularly liked your list of “limitations” of the TEC theory. The first two in particular made me realize that the difference between TEC theory and PCT results from the fact that they are explanations of different phenomena, not different explanations of the same phenomenon. TEC is a an explanation of behavior as generated output (action); PCT is an explanation of behavior as control. I realized this after reading the first two limitations of TEC theory that you point out in your review:

(a) perception is still associated with specific actions

(b) the process of acting against disturbances through negative feedback control is not specified

RM: These are limitations only if the phenomenon TEC were trying to explain was control: the production of consistent results in a disturbance prone environment. A theory that explains control has to include an explanation of how the behaving system manages to vary its actions appropriately in order to produce such consistent results. Such consistency – the fact that the results of action are kept in reference states – can’t be explained by a theory that has inputs (perceptions of the state of the controlled result) associated with specific actions. A theory that explains control will inevitably end up with the same input
s (perceptions) often being associated with different actions-- so the theory will not have limitation (a) – and this will occur as part of the process of acting against the effect of disturbances to the state of the controlled result – so the theory will not have limitation (b).

RM: This is why people with theories that seem somewhat similar to PCT are rarely (actually, never) moved to"get on board" with PCT. PCT is the only theory around that explains the controlling done by living systems. All other theories – equilibrium theories, self-regulation theories, manual control theories, whatever --are trying to explain something other than control. What distinguishes PCT from all other theories of behavior is the phenomenon it explains – control – not the theory itself.

Best

Rick

In contrast, in PCT:

(a) any action is carried out to control perception but it is not tied to a specific perception; in PCT behaviour is defined by the perceptual variables it controls at various levels in a hierachy. Any regularity we see in behaviour is because of the perceptual (kinaesthetic, proprioceptive, visual, etc) variabkes that are being controlled as that behaviour is observed.

(b) any observable action is a property of the environment as well as the individual - when one opens a door the weight, angle etc of the door are a component of how that action is observed. In order to achieve controlled perception, feedback from ongoing current perception must be corrected online and negative feedback contro
l is the process through which this occurs.

(c) PCT includes a putative 11 levels of perception. Going up the hierarchy these levels go from proximal to distal but the 11 levels provides a much more refined, flexible architecture

(d) PCT describes how mental simulation can operate through a specific recurrent link within a level in the hierarchy and describes how the phenomenology and content of the mental simulation maps neatly onto the specific levels at which the recurrent link occurs.

(e) PCT provides mathematical specification and computer models of how learning occurs within the architecture

(f) PCT is a theory to build functional models, as in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering) one tests the validity of the theory through developments in technology.

I hope this sparks some interest and further discussion!

All the best,

Warren


Richard S. Marken

www.mindreadings.com
Author of Doing Research on Purpose.
Now available from Amazon or Barnes & Noble

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

For your interest CSGers!

http://bernhard-hommel.eu/Action%20control%20according%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20event%20coding.pdf

<IMG_0591.PNG>


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

I think proximal and distal are temporal rather than spatial distinctions. Nonetheless I was being overgenerous to TEC here - the levels in PCT are not a simple function of temporal duration, as we all know!

Warren

···

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Text version…

I have read your recent article.

On the positive side, it is nice to see the convergence of opinion regarding the difficulties of the standard stimulus-response approach to psychology and in relation to this, how flawed most psychology studies are with regard to the assumption that the line of cause and effect starts with then stimulus. In relation to this, we agree on the ideomotor principle that the sensory consequences of action are critical to defining action, and in turn characterising the nature of a stimulus. The common coding of perception and action also aligns with PCT. So there is much to share and potentially collaborate on.

On the other hand, TEC seems to provide only a limited account of how an alternative architecture actually works, because:

(a) perception is still associated with specific actions

(b) the process of acting against disturbances through negative feedback control is not specified

(c)
the levels are divided between distal and proximal rather than specifying the multiple levels of perceptual code likely to be required for any non-simple skill

(d) the architectural components to enable planning and imagination are not described, just assumed

(e) the learning algorithm to form the representations described is not specified

(f) the theory itself is not specified in enough detail to build working models (prototypes) of individuals to test the theory most robustly

In contrast, in PCT:

(a) any action is carried out to control perception but it is not tied to a specific perception; in PCT behaviour is defined by the perceptual variables it controls at various levels in a hierachy. Any regularity we see in behaviour is because of the perceptual (kinaesthetic,
proprioceptive, visual, etc) variabkes that are being controlled as that behaviour is observed.

(b) any observable action is a property of the environment as well as the individual - when one opens a door the weight, angle etc of the door are a component of how that action is observed. In order to achieve controlled perception, feedback from ongoing current perception must be corrected online and negative feedback control is the process through which this occurs.

(c) PCT includes a putative 11 levels of perception. Going up the hierarchy these levels go from proximal to distal but the 11 levels provides a much more refined, flexible architecture

(d) PCT describes how mental simulation can operate through a specific recurrent link within a level in the hierarchy and describes how the phenomenology and content of the mental simulation maps neatly onto the s
pecific levels at which the recurrent link occurs.

(e) PCT provides mathematical specification and computer models of how learning occurs within the architecture

(f) PCT is a theory to build functional models, as in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering) one tests the validity of the theory through developments in technology.

I hope this sparks some interest and further discussion!

All the best,

Warren

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

For your interest CSGers!

http://bernhard-hommel.eu/Action%20control%20according%20to%20the%20theory%20of%20event%20coding.pdf

<IMG_0591.PNG>


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