The Task Dynamics of Angiogenesis

In the last two posts, I have laid out the proposal that endothelial cells seem to actively perceive their environments, and set out the details of the argument in favour of explicitly taking an ecological approach to understanding why they do what they do during angiogenesis. It's now time to develop that analysis more explicitly.

To do this, I will apply the 4 questions we proposed in Wilson & Golonka (2013) to the question of the endothelial cell behaviour.  These are

1. What is the task to be solved? 
2. What are the resources the organism has access to that might solve the task?
3. How might these resources get assembled so as to solve the task?
4. Do organisms actually do what you describe in Q3?

We gave some worked examples of this analysis in the 2013 paper, and have described how it drives my work on coordinated rhythmic movement (Golonka & Wilson, 2012, 2019). This will hopefully serve as another example.

The Inaugural 'Name Our New Blog' Competition

We have recently accepted an offer to blog on Psychology Today, where we will have an opportunity to talk to a wider popular science audience about the various crazy things we think psychology should be up to. We're very excited by the opportunity; this blog will continue to be home for all our more serious theorising and occasional whacky experiment idea but we're looking forward to trying out some of these ideas with a broader audience in mind. 

The new blog will feature some posts from here reworked for a more general audience, especially some of our embodied cognition stuff, as well as new material as we try out ideas for another project currently under development. The broad focus will be less on developing new theory, and more on introducing the core ideas to an interested audience, and to promote the existence of alternative ways to do cognitive science.

However, we need a name for the blog! The editor who contacted us suggested something like 'Against the Grain', seeing as how we spend most of our time pushing back against a lot of modern psychology. We quite like this broad idea, but we thought we might need something pithy and eye catching that also conveys a little more information. Some ideas we thought might not quite work are 'Psychology: You're All Doing It Wrong' and 'Please Allow Me To Explain My Theory To You In Excruciating Detail'*; but if you follow the blog or the Twitter feed you should get the general ball park.

We thought a Twitter/blog reader competition seemed only fair, seeing as how your support and interest is what made this opportunity available to us, so please, post your suggestions in the comments below or tweet us @PsychScientists. If you see one you like, reply to it with a vote!

*(Ed Yong has referred to my writing as 'dense but interesting' at least twice, which I like to think is a compliment but a hint :)

Robots, Representation, & Dynamical Systems

When cognitive science tries to explain a given behaviour, it typically looks in one of two places for it's explanation. Some people go looking in the brain for the representation that encodes the solution to the task; these people typically treat the brain as the source of the observed structure in behaviour. Some of us, however, go looking in perception for the necessary access to the properties of the world that enable us to couple our resources to those in the environment. We consider the origin of behaviour to be the dynamical system formed by this coupling; the system provides a set of constraints and behaviour emerges as the constrained system works over time.

It's sometimes a little hard to tease these suggestions apart: after all, they  typically both predict that we succeed at the task at hand. When studying people, the best way to try and separate these two suggestions out is to examine how we succeed. For instance, in catching a fly ball, the brain-based prediction solution says we will run in a direct line to where we think the ball will land; the perception-based coupling solution suggests we will run along curved paths as we attempt to move so as to produce the information required. In this case, data supports the latter hypothesis, but it's not always that easy.

Sometimes, you've just got to start from scratch and build yourself a robot.

The Size-Weight Illusion is Functional, and It's About Throwing

My colleagues, Geoff Bingham and Qin Zhu, have recently published some fascinating data which has emerged from their work on the uniquely human skill, long-distance throwing. This is a novel and rich perception-action task which Bingham and Zhu (and recently, me) have been investigating for some time, with many interesting results. I'll get onto blogging about this project once I've caught up with the coordination studies and have had some time to get my head around the data I'm helping generate.

I wanted to blog about this new paper, though, because it's an exciting result which deserves all the attention it gets. The result is about the size-weight illusion, one of the most robust illusions around. As I've talked about before, illusions are a concern to ecological psychologists only in that they suggest the task has been incorrectly characterised. This paper presents data that suggests the size-weight illusion is actually functional, and that it reflects the readiness of the human perception-action system to throw objects long distances.

This paper has seen some activity in the popular press already (e.g. here and here): Geoff's hoping for the NYT Science section too! 

UPDATE: Geoff being interview on NPR

How to Build a Valid Measure of Behaviour

One of the main problems facing psychology as a science is the issue of validity - what is the relationship between what you measured and what you are actually interested in? One of the things I like about studying movement is how straight-forward this issue is - we're interested in the control of action, so I just measure the action! The most common directly measured kinematic variable is displacement, or position over time; you can then derive (via differentiation) the various rates of change of the previous variable (velocity, acceleration, jerk, and, I kid you not, snap, crackle, and pop). In human movement we never tend to go past jerk, and you can do pretty well with just position and it's rate of change, velocity.

This post will discuss how we start from these basic kinematics and derive a measure of coordination that is  entirely valid, covers the entire space of possible states and provides a unique number for every possible state within that space. Psychology doesn't have a lot of these kinds of variables, but you need to be able to characterise your state space to do the kind of modelling I've been describing and advocating.

Eye, Borg

It's been a good day for this sort of thing; shortly after my last post I came across this blog post via Gizmodo. It describes the curious case of Neil, who cannot see colour but who has learned to hear it, via a camera that encodes colours as sounds.

The Writer Who Forgot How To Read

NPR has a cute little animation (via BoingBoing) about the story of writer Howard Engel. Engel suffered a minor stroke which left him unable to read words, but he could still write (and read what he wrote for a short period, before it faded into incomprehensibility).

Fascinatingly, he has taught himself to read again using touch. By tracing a letter with his finger (or eventually with his tongue on the roof of his mouth or back of his teeth) he could identify it; he's fast enough now with his tongue that he can read about half of the subtitles in a foreign movie!