Grounding Cognitive‐Level Processes in Behavior: The View From Dynamic Systems Theory

Abstract

Marr’s seminal work laid out a program of research by specifying key questions for cognitive science at different levels of analysis. Because Dynamic Systems Theory focuses on time and interdependence of components DST research programs come to very different conclusions regarding the nature of cognitive change. We review a specific DST approach to cognitive-level processes: Dynamic Field Theory. We review research applying dynamic field theory to several cognitive-level processes: object permanence, naming hierarchical categories, and inferring intent, that demonstrate the difference in understanding of behavior and cognition that results from a DST perspective. These point to a central challenge for cognitive science research as defined by Marr—emergence. We argue that appreciating emergence raises questions about the utility of computational level analyses and opens the door to insights concerning the origin of novel forms of behavior and thought (e.g., a new chess strategy). We contend this is one of the most fundamental questions about cognition and behavior.

Developmental changes in motor cortex activity as infants develop functional motor skills

“…Theories focused on how the brain becomes organized to control functional behavior compliment the developmental systems approach; particularly relevant are Edelman's theory of neuronal group selection (TNGS, Edelman, ; Sporns & Edelman, ) and dynamic neural field theory led by Gregor Schöner, Kopecz, and Erlhagen (). Both theories link behavior and the neural dynamics as co‐evolving over time (Samuelson, Jenkins, & Spencer, ; Sporns & Edelman, ). Specifically, TNGS proposes that early in skill acquisition, there is a particularly high redundancy in the nervous system.…”

Escala de desarrollo armónico (EDA): Una propuesta para la evaluación clínica del desarrollo infantil desde la Teoría de Sistemas

“…Percepción Interna -propiocepción, metacognición- (Morales, y otros, 2018), 5. Percepción Externa de los elementos conceptuales del entorno (Kupers, Lehmann-Wermser, McPherson, & van Geert, 2019;Perone & Spencer, 2014;Samuelson, Jenkins, & Spencer, 2015), 6. Modulación del ritmo del sistema nervioso central -maduración lateral y mielinización- (Buss & Spencer, 2014;Gago-Galvagno, y otros, 2019;Ryali, y otros, 2016;Simmering, 2016), 7 y 8.…”

Model-based functional neuroimaging using dynamic neural fields: An integrative cognitive neuroscience approach

“…Subsequent work extended DFT, capturing a wide array of phenomena in the area of spatially-grounded cognition, from infant perseverative reaching (Smith, Thelen, Titzer, & McLin, 1999; Thelen, Schöner, Scheier, & Smith, 2001) to spatial category biases to changes in the metric precision of spatial working memory from childhood to adulthood (Schutte, Spencer, & Schöner, 2003; Simmering, Peterson, Darling, & Spencer, 2008). In the last decade, DFT has been extended into a host of other domains including visual working memory [VWM] (Johnson, Hollingworth, & Luck, 2008; Johnson, Spencer, Luck, & Schöner, 2009; Schneegans, Spencer, Schöner, Hwang, & Hollingworth, 2014), retinal remapping (Schneegans & Schöner, 2012), preferential looking and visual habituation ( Perone, Spencer, & Schöner, 2007; Perone & Spencer, 2008), spatial language (Lipinski, Spencer, & Samuelson, 2010), word learning (Samuelson, Jenkins, & Spencer, 2015), executive function (Buss & Spencer, 2008), and autonomous behavioral organization in cognitive robotics (Sandamirskaya & Schöner, 2010). …”

“…Rather, the subjective sense of DFT comes from the fact that it is rarely possible to search the full parameter space of a dynamic neural field model. Consequently, many of the issues that are central to mathematical psychology and many of the tools that are used to evaluate model fits (Turner et al, 2016) are difficult, if not impossible, to apply to dynamic neural field models (Samuelson et al, 2015). …”