Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Action, connectionism and enaction: A developmental perspective

  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article compares the potential of classical and connectionist computational concepts for explanations of innate infant knowledge and of its development. It focuses on issues relating to: the perceptual process; the control and form(s) of perceptual-behavioural coordination; the role of environmental structure in the organization of action; and the construction of novel forms of activity. There is significant compatibility between connectionist and classical views of computation, though classical concepts are, at present, better able to provide a comprehensive computational view of the infant. However, Varela's “enaction” perspective poses a significant challenge for both approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ball, W. and Vurpillot, E. (1981). Action and perception of displacements in infancy. In G. E. Butterworth (ed.)Infancy and Epistemology: An Evaluation of Piaget's Theory. Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, D. H., Hinton, G. E. and Sejnowski, T. J. (1983). Parallel visual computation.Science, 306, 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, T. G. R. (1979).Human Development. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, T. G. R., Broughton, J. M. and Moore, M. K. (1970). The coordination of visual and tactual input in infants.Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 51–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1973). Organization of early skilled action.Child Development, 44, 1–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. M. (1986a). Some reductive strategies in cognitive neurobiology.Mind, 95, 279–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. M. (1986b). The continuity of philosophy and the sciences.Mind and Language, 1, 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. M. (1989), ‘On the nature of theories: a neurocomputational perspective. In C. W. Savage (ed.)The Structure and Function of Scientific Theories: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crick, F. and Asanuma, S. (1986). Certain aspects of the anatomy and physiology of the cerebral cortex. In J. L. McClelland and D. E. Rumelhart (eds)Parallel Distributed Processing. Volume 2: Psychological and Biological Models. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, S. W. (1987). Machine learning and cognitive development. In J. C. Rutkowska and C. Crook (eds.)Computers, Cognition and Development. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1987).The Modularity of Mind. Harvard, Mass.: Bradford/MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. and Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis.Cognition, 28, 3–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. J. and Spelke, E. S. (1983). The development of perception. In J. H. Flavell and E. M. Markman (eds)Cognitive Development. Handbook of Child Psychology, 4th edition. Volume 3. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. R. (1981). Comparative neuro-ontogeny: its implications for the development of human intelligence. In G. E. Butterworth (ed.)Infancy and Epistemology: An Evaluation of Piaget's Theory. Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugeland, J. (1978). The nature and plausibility of cognitivism.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 215–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebb, D. O. (1946). On the nature of fear.Psychological Review, 53, 259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebb, D. O. (1949).The Organization of Behaviour. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, E. H. (1956). Space perception in the chick.Scientific American, 195 (July), 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinton, G. (1984). Some computational solutions to Bernstein's problems. In H. T. A. Whiting (ed.)Human Motor Actions: Bernstein Reassessed. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, G. W. and Riddoch, J. (1986). Information processing systems which embody computational rules: the connectionist approach.Mind and Language, 1, 201–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, J. (1972). Do infants think?Scientific American, 226, 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, R. W. (1985).Computer Experience and Cognitive Development: A Child's Learning in a Computer Culture. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr, D. (1977). Artificial intelligence — a personal view.Artificial Intelligence, 9, 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr, D. (1982).Vision. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, D. (1983). Under what conditions can a machine attribute meanings to symbols?Proceedings 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Volume1, 45–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, P. M. (1975). The development of visually guided reaching.Perception and Psychophysics, 18, 181–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meltzoff, A. N. (1981). Imitation, inter-model coordination and representation in early infancy. In G. E. Butterworth (ed.)Infancy and Epistemology: An Evaluation of Piaget's Theory. Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. L. and Papert, S. A. (1988).Perceptrons. (2nd Edition). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mounoud, P. and Bower, T. G. R. (1974). Conservation of weight in infants.Cognition, 3, 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mounoud, P. and Hauert, C. A. (1982). Development of sensorimotor organization in young children: grasping and lifting objects. In G. E. Forman (ed.)Action and Thought: From Sensorimotor Schemes to Thought Operations. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mounoud, P. and Vinter, A. (1981). Representation and sensorimotor development. In G. E. Butterworth (ed.)Infancy and Epistemology: An Evaluation of Piaget's Theory. Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. (1980). Physical symbol systems.Cognitive Science, 4, 135–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A. and Simon, H. A. (1972).Human Problem Solving, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1980). Twelve issues for cognitive science.Cognition, 4, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1986). Reflections on cognition and parallel distributed processing. In J. L. McClelland and D. E. Rumelhart (eds)Parallel Distributed Processing. Volume 2: Psychological and Biological Models. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, D. (1987). human decision making and the symbolic search space paradigm.AI & Society, 1, 103–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, D. and Paap, K. (1988). An introduction to learning.Artificial Intelligence Review, 2, 79–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1953).The Origin of Intelligence in the Child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1955).The Child's Construction of Reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, J. B. (1989). Connectionism: past, present and future.Artificial Intelligence Review, 3, 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1978). Computational models and empirical constraints.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 93–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984).Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science, Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E. and McClelland, J. L. (1986). PDP models and general issues in cognitive science. In D. E. Rumelhart and J. L. McClelland (eds)Parallel Distributed Processing. Volume 1: Foundations. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. L., McClelland, J. L. and the P.D.P. Research Group (1986)Parallel Distributed Processing. Volume 1: Foundations. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. L. and Hinton, G. E. (1986). Schemata and sequential thought processes in PDP models. In J. L. McClelland and Rumelhart, D. E. (eds)Parallel Distributed Processing. Volume 2: Psychological and Biological Models. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutkowska, J. C. (1986). Developmental psychology's contribution to cognitive science. In K. S. Gill (ed.)Artificial Intelligence for Society. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutkowska, J. C. (1988a). “Constraints” in perceptual and cognitive development. Paper presented at the Conference of the British Psychological Society Developmental Section. Harlech, Wales.

  • Rutkowska, J. C. (1988b).Perception, Action and Representation in Infancy: A Computational Approach. D. Phil. Thesis, University of Sussex.

  • Simon, H. A. (1983). Why should machines learn? In R. S. Michaelski, J. G. Carbonell and T. M. Mitchell (eds)Machine Learning. Volume 1. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kauffman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, A. (1978).The Computer Revolution in Philosophy. Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. C. (forthcoming).Is Computation Formal? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.

  • Smolensky, P. (1987). Connectionist AI, symbolic AI and the brain.Artificial Intelligence Review, 1, 95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spelke, E. S. (1985). Perception of unity, persistence, and identity: thoughts on infants' conceptions of objects. In J. Mehler and R. Fox (eds)Neonate Cognition: Beyond the Blooming, Buzzing Confusion. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steels, L. (1982). Constraints as consultants. Paper presented at the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Orsay, France.

  • Thelen, E. (1984). Learning to walk: ecological demands and phylogenetic constraints. In L.P. Lipsitt and C. Rovee-Collier (eds)Advances in Infancy Research. Volume 3. Nerwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (1987).Culture and the Development of Children's Action. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J. (1988).Cognitive Science: A Cartography of Current Ideas. Unpublished translation of F. J. Varela (1989)Conaitre — Les Sciences Cognitives: Tendances et Perspectives. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willatts, P. (1984). Stages in the development of intentional search by young infants.Development Psychology, 20, 389–396.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Cognitive Computing Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9QN, Brighton, UK

    Julie C. Rutkowska

Authors
  1. Julie C. Rutkowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rutkowska, J.C. Action, connectionism and enaction: A developmental perspective. AI & Soc 4, 96–114 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889638

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01889638

Keywords

Search

Navigation