Tag Archives: Reactive / Deliberative

A critic of the “two types of thinking” myth (deliberative, slow, rational, optimal vs. reactive, quick, emotional, suboptimal)

David E. Melnikoff, John A. Bargh, The Mythical Number Two, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 22, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 280-293, DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.001.

It is often said that there are two types of psychological processes: one that is intentional, controllable, conscious, and inefficient, and another that is unintentional, uncontrollable, unconscious, and efficient. Yet, there have been persistent and increasing objections to this widely influential dual-process typology. Critics point out that the ‘two types’ framework lacks empirical support, contradicts well-established findings, and is internally incoherent. Moreover, the untested and untenable assumption that psychological phenomena can be partitioned into two types, we argue, has the consequence of systematically thwarting scientific progress. It is time that we as a field come to terms with these issues. In short, the dual-process typology is a convenient and seductive myth, and we think cognitive science can do better.

Hybridizing RRT with deliberative path planning to improve performance

Dong, Y., Camci, E. & Kayacan, Faster RRT-based Nonholonomic Path Planning in 2D Building Environments Using Skeleton-constrained Path Biasing, J Intell Robot Syst (2018) 89: 387, DOI: 10.1007/s10846-017-0567-9.

This paper presents a faster RRT-based path planning approach for regular 2-dimensional (2D) building environments. To minimize the planning time, we adopt the idea of biasing the RRT tree-growth in more focused ways. We propose to calculate the skeleton of the 2D environment first, then connect a geometrical path on the skeleton, and grow the RRT tree via the seeds generated locally along this path. We conduct batched simulations to find the universal parameters in manipulating the seeds generation. We show that the proposed skeleton-biased locally-seeded RRT (skilled-RRT) is faster than the other baseline planners (RRT, RRT*, A*-RRT, Theta*-RRT, and MARRT) through experimental tests using different vehicles in different 2D building environments. Given mild assumptions of the 2D environments, we prove that the proposed approach is probabilistically complete. We also present an application of the skilled-RRT for unmanned ground vehicle. Compared to the other baseline algorithms (Theta*-RRT and MARRT), we show the applicability and fast planning of the skilled-RRT in real environment.

Evidence of the dicotomy reactive/predictive control in the brain

Mattie Tops, Markus Quirin, Maarten A.S. Boksem, Sander L. Koole, Large-scale neural networks and the lateralization of motivation and emotion, International Journal of Psychophysiology, Volume 119, 2017, Pages 41-49, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.02.004.

Several lines of research in animals and humans converge on the distinction between two basic large-scale brain networks of self-regulation, giving rise to predictive and reactive control systems (PARCS). Predictive (internally-driven) and reactive (externally-guided) control are supported by dorsal versus ventral corticolimbic systems, respectively. Based on extant empirical evidence, we demonstrate how the PARCS produce frontal laterality effects in emotion and motivation. In addition, we explain how this framework gives rise to individual differences in appraising and coping with challenges. PARCS theory integrates separate fields of research, such as research on the motivational correlates of affect, EEG frontal alpha power asymmetry and implicit affective priming effects on cardiovascular indicators of effort during cognitive task performance. Across these different paradigms, converging evidence points to a qualitative motivational division between, on the one hand, angry and happy emotions, and, on the other hand, sad and fearful emotions. PARCS suggests that those two pairs of emotions are associated with predictive and reactive control, respectively. PARCS theory may thus generate important new insights on the motivational and emotional dynamics that drive autonomic and homeostatic control processes.