Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
7.7CiteScore
2.0Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
2014 Volume 29
Article Contents
Next Previous
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

A review of case-based reasoning in cognition–action continuum: a step toward bridging symbolic and non-symbolic artificial intelligence

  • Department of Computer and Information Science

More Information
  • Abstract: In theories and models of computational intelligence, cognition and action have historically been investigated on separate grounds. We conjecture that the main mechanism of case-based reasoning (CBR) applies to cognitive tasks at various levels and of various granularity, and hence can represent a bridge—or a continuum—between the higher and lower levels of cognition. CBR is an artificial intelligence (AI) method that draws upon the idea of solving a new problem reusing similar past experiences. In this paper, we re-formulate the notion of CBR to highlight the commonalities between higher-level cognitive tasks such as diagnosis, and lower-level control such as voluntary movements of an arm. In this view, CBR is envisaged as a generic process independent from the content and the detailed format of cases. Diagnostic cases and internal representations underlying motor control constitute two instantiations of the case representation. In order to claim such a generic mechanism, the account of CBR needs to be revised so that its position in non-symbolic AI becomes clearer. The paper reviews the CBR literature that targets lower levels of cognition to show how CBR may be considered as a step toward bridging the gap between symbolic and non-symbolic AI.
  • 加载中
  • Aha D. W., Molineaux M., Ponsen M.2005. Learning to win: case-based plan selection in a real-time strategy game. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, Muñoz-avila, H. & Ricci, F. (eds). Springer, 5–20.

    Google Scholar

    Arbib M.2002. The mirror system, imitation, and the evolution of language. In Imitation in Animals and Artifacts, Dautenhahn, K. & Nehaniv, C.L. (eds). MIT Press, 229–280.

    Google Scholar

    Arkin R. C.1989. Motor schema-based mobile robot navigation. International Journal of Robotic Research8(4), 92–112.

    Google Scholar

    Ashley K., Hammond K.1987. Compare and contrast, a test of expertise. In Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 273–284. Seattle, Washington.

    Google Scholar

    Billard A., Hayes G.1999. DRAMA, a connectionist architecture for control and learning in autonomous robots. Adaptive Behavior7(1), 35–63.

    Google Scholar

    Blakemore S. J., Goodbody S. J., Wolpert D. M.1998. Predicting the consequences of our own actions: the role of sensorimotor context estimation. Journal of Neuroscience18, 7511–7518.

    Google Scholar

    Brooks R. A.1991. Intelligence without representations. Artificial Intelligence Journal47, 139–159.

    Google Scholar

    Cangelosi A., Riga T.2006. An embodied model for sensorimotor grounding and grounding transfer: experiments with epigenetic robots. Cognitive Science30(4), 673–689.

    Google Scholar

    Cisek P.Kalaska J. F.2005. Neural correlates of reaching decisions in dorsal premotor cortex: specification of multiple direction choices and final selection of action. Neuron45(5), 801–814.

    Google Scholar

    Cunningham P.2009. A taxonomy of similarity mechanisms for case-based reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering21(11), 1532–1543.

    Google Scholar

    Dapretto M., Davies M. S., Pfeifer J. H., Scott A. A., Sigman M., Bookheimer S. Y., Iacoboni M.2005. Understanding emotions in others: mirror neuron dysfunction in children with autism spectrum disorders. Nature Neuroscience9, 28–30.

    Google Scholar

    Demiris Y., Khadhouri B.2006. Hierarchical attentive multiple models for execution and recognition of actions. Robotics and Autonomous Systems54, 361–369.

    Google Scholar

    de Mántaras R. L., Mcsherry D., Bridge D., Leake D., Smyth B., Susan C., Faltings B., Maher M. L., Cox M. T., Forbus K., Keane M., Aamodt A., Watson I.2005. Retrieval, reuse, revision and retention in case-based reasoning. The Knowledge Engineering Review20(3), 215–240.

    Google Scholar

    Díaz-Agudo B., Gervás P., González-Calero P. A.2003. Adaptation guided retrieval based on formal concept analysis. In Case-Based Reasoning Research & Development. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2689, 131–145.

    Google Scholar

    Dinerstein J., Ventura D., Egbert P. K.2005. Fast and robust incremental action prediction for interactive agents. Computational Intelligence21(1), 90–110.

    Google Scholar

    Dinstein I., Gardner J., Jazayeri M., Heeger D.2008. Executed and observed movements have different distributed representations in human aIPS. Journal of Neuroscience28(44), 11231–11239.

    Google Scholar

    Dinstein I., Hasson U., Rubin N., Heeger D.2007. Brain areas selective for both observed and executed movements. Journal of Neurophysiology98(3), 1415–1427.

    Google Scholar

    Fagan M., Cunningham P.2003. Case-based plan recognition in computer games. In Proceedings of the Fifth ICCBR. Springer, 161–170. Trondheim, Norway.

    Google Scholar

    Filimon F., Nelson J. D., Hagler D. J., Sereno M. I.2007. Human cortical representations for reaching: mirror neurons for execution, observation, and imagery. NeuroImage37(4), 1315–1328.

    Google Scholar

    French R. M.1999. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences3(4), 128–135.

    Google Scholar

    Gabel T., Veloso M. M.2001. Selecting Heterogeneous Team Players by Case-based Reasoning: A Case Study in Robotic Soccer Simulation. Technical report CMU-CS-01-165.

    Google Scholar

    Gallese V., Goldman A.1998. Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences2(12).

    Google Scholar

    Gaussier P., Moga S., Banquet J. P., Quoy M.1998. From perception-action loops to imitation processes: a bottom-up approach of learning by imitation. Applied Artificial Intelligence1(7), 701–727.

    Google Scholar

    Grabert M., Bridge D.2003. Case-based reuse of software examplets. Journal of Universal Computer Science9, 627–640.

    Google Scholar

    Grush R.2004. The emulation theory of representation: motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences3, 377–396.

    Google Scholar

    Hamilton A., Grafton S.2007. The motor hierarchy: from kinematics to goals and intentions. Sensorimotor Foundations of Higher Cognition22, 381–408.

    Google Scholar

    Hammond K.1989. Case-based planning: viewing planning as a memory task. Perspectives in Artificial Intelligence. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar

    Harnad S.1990. The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena42, 335–346.

    Google Scholar

    Hartley T., Mehdi Q.2009. Online action adaptation in interactive computer games. Entertainment Computing7(2), 1–31.

    Google Scholar

    Herwig A., Waszak F.2009. Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology62(2), 219–227.

    Google Scholar

    Imamizu H., Kuroda T., Yoshioka T., Kawato M.2004. Functional magnetic resonance imaging examination of two modular architectures for switching multiple internal models. Journal of Neuroscience24(5), 1173–1181.

    Google Scholar

    Ito M.1984. The Cerebellum and Neural Control. Raven Press.

    Google Scholar

    Ito M.2008. Control of mental activities by internal models in the cerebellum. Nature Reviews Neuroscience9(4), 304–313.

    Google Scholar

    Jaeger H., Haas H.2004. Harnessing nonlinearity: predicting chaotic systems and saving energy in wireless telecommunication. Science304(5667), 78–80.

    Google Scholar

    Jordan M. I., Rumelhart D. E.1992. Forward models: supervised learning with a distal teacher. Cognitive Science16, 307–354.

    Google Scholar

    Jurišica I., Glasgow J.1995. Applying case-based reasoning to control in robotics. In 3rd Robotics and Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, St. Hubert, Quebec, 189–196.

    Google Scholar

    Jurišica I., Glasgow J.1997. Improving performance of case-based classification using context-based relevance. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools6, 3–4.

    Google Scholar

    Kandel E. R., Schwartz J. H., Jessell T. M.2000. Principles of Neural Science. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar

    Karol A., Nebel B., Stanton C., Williams M.-A.2003. Case based game play in the robocup four-legged league part 1 the theoretical model. In RoboCup, Polani, D., Browning, B. & Bonarini, A. (eds). Springer, 739–747.

    Google Scholar

    Kerkez B., Cox M.2003. Incremental case-based plan recognition with local predictions. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools: Architectures, Languages, Algorithms12, 413–463.

    Google Scholar

    Koehler J.1996. Planning from second principles. Artificial Intelligence87, 148–187.

    Google Scholar

    Kohler E., Keysers C., Umilta M., Fogassi L., Gallese V., Rizzolatti G.2002. Hearing sounds, understanding actions: action representation in mirror neurons. Science297(5582), 846–848.

    Google Scholar

    Kolodner J.1993. Case-Based Reasoning (Morgan Kaufmann Series in Representation and Reasoning). Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar

    Kolodner J., Simpson R., Sycara K.1985. A process model of case-based reasoning in problem solving. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, CA, 284–290.

    Google Scholar

    Kravitz J. H., Yaffe F.1972. Conditioned adaptation to prismatic displacement with a tone as the conditional stimulus. Percept Psychophysiology12, 305–308.

    Google Scholar

    Leake D., Kinley A.1998. Integrating cbr components within a case-based planner. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98 Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning Integration, 96–105. Madison, Wisconsin.

    Google Scholar

    Leake D. B., Kinley A., Wilson D.1995. Learning to improve case adaptation by introspective reasoning and cbr. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, 229–240. Sesimbra, Portugal.

    Google Scholar

    Lee-Urban S., Muñoz-Avila H.2009. Adaptation versus retrieval trade-off revisited: an analysis of boundary conditions. In ICCBR, 180–194.

    Google Scholar

    Likhachev M., Arkin R. C.2001. Spatio-temporal case-based reasoning for behavioral selection. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1627–1634. Seoul, Korea.

    Google Scholar

    Likhachev M., Kaess M., Arkin R. C.2002. Learning behavioral parameterization using spatio-temporal case-based reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1282–1289. Washington, DC, USA.

    Google Scholar

    Lingnau A., Gesierich B., Caramazza A.2009. Asymmetric fMRI adaptation reveals no evidence for mirror neurons in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106(24), 9925–9930.

    Google Scholar

    Lopez B., Plaza E.1993. Case-based planning for medical diagnosis. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS'93), 96–105. Trondheim, Norway.

    Google Scholar

    Markman A. B., Dietrich E.2000. In defense of representation. Cognitive Psychology40, 138–171.

    Google Scholar

    Massie S., Wiratunga N., Donati A., Vicari E.2007. From anomaly reports to cases. In 7th International CBR Conference (ICCBR'07). Springer, 359–373. Belfast, Northern Ireland.

    Google Scholar

    Matarić M. J.2002. Sensory-motor primitives as a basis for learning by imitation: linking perception to action and biology to robotics. In Imitation in Animals and Artifacts, Dautenhahn, K. & Nehaniv, C.L. (eds). MIT Press, 392–422.

    Google Scholar

    Mehdi Q., Gough N., Elmaghraby A. (eds). 2005. Online Learning From Observation For Interactive Computer Games. University of Wolverhampton, School of Computing and Information Technology.

    Google Scholar

    Meltzoff A. N., Moore M. K.1977. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science198, 75–78.

    Google Scholar

    Meltzoff A. N., Moore M. K.1997. Explaining facial imitation: a theoretical model. Early Development and Parenting6, 179–192.

    Google Scholar

    Miall R. C., Wolpert D. M.1996. Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Networks9(8), 1265–1279.

    Google Scholar

    Miall R. C., Weir D. J., Wolpert D. M. W., Stein J. F. S.1993. Is the cerebellum a smith predictor?Journal of Motor Behavior25(3), 203–216.

    Google Scholar

    Muñoz-Avila H., Cox M. T.2008. Case-based plan adaptation: an analysis and review. IEEE Intelligent Systems23(4), 75–81.

    Google Scholar

    Muñoz Avila H., Hüllen J.1996. Feature weighting by explaining case-based planning episodes. In EWCBR '96: Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Advances in Case-Based Reasoning, Smith, I. & Faltings, B. (eds). Springer-Verlag, 280–294.

    Google Scholar

    Oberman L., Hubbard E., McCleery J., Altschuler E., Ramachandran V., Pineda J.2005. EEG evidence for mirror neuron dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders. Cognitive Brain Research24(2), 190–198.

    Google Scholar

    Öztürk P.2009. Levels and types of action selection: the action selection soup. Adaptive Behavior – Animals, Animats, Software Agents, Robots, Adaptive Systems17(6), 537–554.

    Google Scholar

    Piaget J.1962. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar

    Ram A.1993. Indexing, elaboration and refinement: incremental learning of explanatory cases. Machine Learning10, 201–248.

    Google Scholar

    Ram A., Arkin R. C., Moorman K., Clark R. J.1997. Case-based reactive navigation: a method for on-line selection and adaptation of reactive robotic control parameters. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B27(3), 376–394.

    Google Scholar

    Ram A., Francis A. J.1996. Multi-plan retrieval and adaptation in an experience-based agent. In Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons, and Future Directions, Leake, D. (ed). AAAI Press, 167–183.

    Google Scholar

    Ram A., Santamara J. C.1993. Continuous case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence90, 86–93.

    Google Scholar

    Rizzolatti G., Fadiga L., Gallese V., Fogassi L.1996a. Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research3, 131–141.

    Google Scholar

    Rizzolatti G., Fadiga L., Matelli M., Bettinardi V., Paulesu E., Perani D., Fazio F.1996b.Localization of grasp representations in humans by PET: 1. Observation versus execution. Experimental Brain Research111(2), 246–252.

    Google Scholar

    Robin N., Dominique L., Toussaint L., Blandin Y., Guillot A., Le Her M.2007. Effects of motor imagery training on returning serve accuracy in tennis: the role of imagery ability. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology2, 177–188.

    Google Scholar

    Ros R., Arcos J. L., de Mántaras R. L., Veloso M.2009. A case-based approach for coordinated action selection in robot soccer. Artificial Intelligence173(9–10), 1014–1039.

    Google Scholar

    Ros R., Veloso M., de Mántaras R. L., Sierra C., Arcos J. L.2006. Retrieving and reusing game plays for robot soccer. In Advances in Case-Based Reasoning, Roth-Berghofer, T. R., Göker, M. H. & Güvenir, H. A. (eds). Springer, 47–61.

    Google Scholar

    Rosenbloom L., Newell A.1987. Soar: an architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence33, 1–64.

    Google Scholar

    Russel S., Norvig P.2010. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, 3rd edn.

    Google Scholar

    Schaal S.1999. Is imitation learning the route to humanoid robots?Trends in Cognitive Sciences3(6), 233–242.

    Google Scholar

    Schank R. C.1982. Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Searle J.1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar

    Shadmehr R., Mussa-Ivaldi F.1994. Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task. Journal of Neuroscience14(5), 3208–3224.

    Google Scholar

    Shin Y., Proctor R., Capaldi E.2010. A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin136(6), 943–974.

    Google Scholar

    Smyth B., Keane M. T.1998. Adaptation-guided retrieval: questioning the similarity assumption in reasoning. Artificial Intelligence102, 249–293.

    Google Scholar

    Sugandh N., Ontañón S., Ram A.2008. On-line case-based plan adaptation for real-time strategy games. In 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Fox, D. & Gomes, C.P. (eds). AAAI Press, 702–707.

    Google Scholar

    Tidemann A.Öztürk P.2008. Learning dance movements by imitation: a multiple model approach. In 31st Annual German Conference on AI, Dengel, A., Berns, K., Breuel, T, Bomarius, F. & Roth-Berghofer, T. R. (eds). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5243, 380–388. Springer.

    Google Scholar

    Veloso M. M., Muñoz Avila H., Bergmann R.1996. Case-based planning: selected methods and systems. AI Communications9(3), 128–137.

    Google Scholar

    Williams J., Whiten A., Suddendorf T., Perrett D.2001. Imitation, mirror neurons and autism. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews25(4), 287–295.

    Google Scholar

    Wolpert D. M., Doya K., Kawato M.2003. A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences358(1431), 593–602.

    Google Scholar

    Wolpert D. M., Flanagan J. R.2001. Motor prediction. Current Biology11(18), 729–732.

    Google Scholar

    Wolpert D. M., Kawato M.1998. Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks11(7–8), 1317–1329.

    Google Scholar

    Wolpert D. M., Miall R. C., Kawato M.1998. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends in Cognitive Science2.

    Google Scholar

    Zimmermann-Schlatter A., Schuster C., Puhan M. A., Siekierka E., Steurer J.2008. Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation5(8), 8–18.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Pinar Öztürk, Axel Tidemann. 2014. A review of case-based reasoning in cognition–action continuum: a step toward bridging symbolic and non-symbolic artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review 29(1)51−77, doi: 10.1017/S0269888913000076
    Pinar Öztürk, Axel Tidemann. 2014. A review of case-based reasoning in cognition–action continuum: a step toward bridging symbolic and non-symbolic artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review 29(1)51−77, doi: 10.1017/S0269888913000076
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(15) PDF downloads(86)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

A review of case-based reasoning in cognition–action continuum: a step toward bridging symbolic and non-symbolic artificial intelligence

  • Department of Computer and Information Science

  • Published online: 21 March 2013
The Knowledge Engineering Review  29,  2014, 29(1): 51−77  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Abstract: In theories and models of computational intelligence, cognition and action have historically been investigated on separate grounds. We conjecture that the main mechanism of case-based reasoning (CBR) applies to cognitive tasks at various levels and of various granularity, and hence can represent a bridge—or a continuum—between the higher and lower levels of cognition. CBR is an artificial intelligence (AI) method that draws upon the idea of solving a new problem reusing similar past experiences. In this paper, we re-formulate the notion of CBR to highlight the commonalities between higher-level cognitive tasks such as diagnosis, and lower-level control such as voluntary movements of an arm. In this view, CBR is envisaged as a generic process independent from the content and the detailed format of cases. Diagnostic cases and internal representations underlying motor control constitute two instantiations of the case representation. In order to claim such a generic mechanism, the account of CBR needs to be revised so that its position in non-symbolic AI becomes clearer. The paper reviews the CBR literature that targets lower levels of cognition to show how CBR may be considered as a step toward bridging the gap between symbolic and non-symbolic AI.

    HTML

    Acknowledgments

    • The authors wish to thank Ruud van der Weel for using the Pro Reflex System.

    Rights and permissions
    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 2013Cambridge University Press
References (91)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Pinar Öztürk, Axel Tidemann. 2014. A review of case-based reasoning in cognition–action continuum: a step toward bridging symbolic and non-symbolic artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review 29(1)51−77, doi: 10.1017/S0269888913000076
    Pinar Öztürk, Axel Tidemann. 2014. A review of case-based reasoning in cognition–action continuum: a step toward bridging symbolic and non-symbolic artificial intelligence. The Knowledge Engineering Review 29(1)51−77, doi: 10.1017/S0269888913000076
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return