↓ Skip to main content

A game theoretic framework for incentive-based models of intrinsic motivation in artificial systems

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A game theoretic framework for incentive-based models of intrinsic motivation in artificial systems
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00791
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn E. Merrick, Kamran Shafi

Abstract

An emerging body of research is focusing on understanding and building artificial systems that can achieve open-ended development influenced by intrinsic motivations. In particular, research in robotics and machine learning is yielding systems and algorithms with increasing capacity for self-directed learning and autonomy. Traditional software architectures and algorithms are being augmented with intrinsic motivations to drive cumulative acquisition of knowledge and skills. Intrinsic motivations have recently been considered in reinforcement learning, active learning and supervised learning settings among others. This paper considers game theory as a novel setting for intrinsic motivation. A game theoretic framework for intrinsic motivation is formulated by introducing the concept of optimally motivating incentive as a lens through which players perceive a game. Transformations of four well-known mixed-motive games are presented to demonstrate the perceived games when players' optimally motivating incentive falls in three cases corresponding to strong power, affiliation and achievement motivation. We use agent-based simulations to demonstrate that players with different optimally motivating incentive act differently as a result of their altered perception of the game. We discuss the implications of these results both for modeling human behavior and for designing artificial agents or robots.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 49 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Professor 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 10 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Engineering 3 6%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 November 2013.
All research outputs
#13,045,986
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,231
of 29,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,581
of 280,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#530
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
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 280,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.