↓ Skip to main content

The intentional stance as structure learning: a computational perspective on mindreading

Overview of attention for article published in Biological Cybernetics, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
The intentional stance as structure learning: a computational perspective on mindreading
Published in
Biological Cybernetics, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00422-015-0654-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haris Dindo, Francesco Donnarumma, Fabian Chersi, Giovanni Pezzulo

Abstract

Recent theories of mindreading explain the recognition of action, intention, and belief of other agents in terms of generative architectures that model the causal relations between observables (e.g., observed movements) and their hidden causes (e.g., action goals and beliefs). Two kinds of probabilistic generative schemes have been proposed in cognitive science and robotics that link to a "theory theory" and "simulation theory" of mindreading, respectively. The former compares perceived actions to optimal plans derived from rationality principles and conceptual theories of others' minds. The latter reuses one's own internal (inverse and forward) models for action execution to perform a look-ahead mental simulation of perceived actions. Both theories, however, leave one question unanswered: how are the generative models - including task structure and parameters - learned in the first place? We start from Dennett's "intentional stance" proposal and characterize it within generative theories of action and intention recognition. We propose that humans use an intentional stance as a learning bias that sidesteps the (hard) structure learning problem and bootstraps the acquisition of generative models for others' actions. The intentional stance corresponds to a candidate structure in the generative scheme, which encodes a simplified belief-desire folk psychology and a hierarchical intention-to-action organization of behavior. This simple structure can be used as a proxy for the "true" generative structure of others' actions and intentions and is continuously grown and refined - via state and parameter learning - during interactions. In turn - as our computational simulations show - this can help solve mindreading problems and bootstrap the acquisition of useful causal models of both one's own and others' goal-directed actions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 30%
Engineering 7 15%
Computer Science 4 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 8 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2015.
All research outputs
#13,441,810
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Biological Cybernetics
#463
of 675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,736
of 262,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biological Cybernetics
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 675 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them