Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Adaptive Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Aucouturier, J.-J.
Right arrow Articles by Ikegami, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Illusion of Agency: Two Engineering Approaches to Compromise Autonomy and Reactivity in an Artificial System

Jean-Julien Aucouturier

Temple University, Japan Campus, Riken/ERATO Okanoya project, Tokyo, Japan, aucouturier{at}gmail.com

Takashi Ikegami

Graduate School of Arts and Science, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

This article describes and compares two approaches that can be used to build artificial systems that users tend to recognize as agents, based on a review of two systems previously built by the authors. One system, an interactive musical instrument, is a typical artificial intelligence (AI) implementation, based on the technique of constraint programming. The other, a dancing robot, is a typical artificial life (AL) endeavor, specified as a non-linear dynamical system. Although very different in their design, we found that both systems have the same goal of compromising autonomy and reactivity in their user interaction. They elicit interaction and—we argue here—an elusive feeling of agency , because they are neither too predictable nor too random. Creating and controlling such a compromise in a programmatic way is not a trivial problem: we find that both approaches (AI and AL) raise similar pragmatic problems that are in fact rooted in human perception science. Psychological experimentation is needed to clarify the relation between the internal dynamics of the artificial systems and the ongoing feeling of agency (or absence thereof) imparted in their human user. As a first step toward such experimentation, we derive a minimal mathematical model which subsumes both implementations and abstracts them from their respective contexts of music and dance. This model is similar to a Van der Pol oscillator, forced by an input signal coupled to its output in a non-programmatic way. It isolates two critical variables controlling the illusion of agency: the model’s sampling rate and the polynomial order of its reactive term.

Key Words: agency • interaction • constraint programming • autonomy • chaotic itinerancy

Adaptive Behavior, Vol. 17, No. 5, 402-420 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/1059712309344420


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?