In this article we describe how a population of evolving robots can autonomously develop forms of spatial representation which allow them to self-localize and to discriminate different locations of their environment by integrating sensory-motor information over time. The evolving robots also display a remarkable ability to generalize their skill in new environmental conditions that they have never experienced before. The analysis of the obtained results indicates that the evolved robots come up with simple and robust solutions that exploit quasi-periodic limit cycle dynamics emerging from the coupling between the robot/environmental dynamics and a robot's internal dynamics. More specifically, the variations of a robot's internal states are governed by transient dynamical processes originating from the fact that these internal states tend to slowly approximate fixed attractor points, corresponding to different types of sensory states that last for a limited time duration and alternate while the robot moves in the environment.
Beer, R.D. (1995a). A dynamical systems perspective on agent-environment interaction. Artificial Intelligence, 72, 173—215.
2.
Beer, R.D. (1995b). On the dynamics of small continuous-time recurrent neural networks. Adaptive Behavior, 3, 471—511.
3.
Beer, R.D. (2003). The dynamics of active categorical perception in an evolved model agent. Adaptive Behavior, 11, 209—243.
4.
Brooks, R.A. (1991). Intelligence without reason. In J. Mylopoulos & R. Reiter (Eds.), Proceedings of 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
5.
Chiel, H.J., & Beer, R.D. (1997). The brain has a body: Adaptive behavior emerges from interactions of nervous system, body and environment. Trends in Neurosciences, 20, 553—557.
6.
Clark, A. (1997). Being there: putting brain, body and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
7.
Clark, A., & Thornton, C. (1997). Trading spaces: Computation, representation, and the limits of uniformed learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 20, 57—90
8.
Floreano, D., & Mondada, F. (1996). Evolution of homing navigation in a real mobile robot. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics — Part B: Cybernetics, 26, 396—407.
9.
Meyer, J.-A., & Filliat, D. (2003). Map-based navigation in mobile robots: II. A review of map-learning and path planning strategies. Cognitive Systems Research, 4, 283—317.
10.
Mondada, R., Franzi, E., & Ienne, P. (1993). Mobile robot miniaturization: A tool for investigation in control algorithms. In T. Y. Yoshikawa & F. Miyazaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Experimental Robots. Berlin: Springer-Verlag .
11.
Morimoto, G., & Ikegami, T. (2004). Sensory-motor coupling and dynamical categorization . In J. Pollack, M. A. Bedau, P. Husbands, T. Ikegami, & R. A. Watson (Eds.), Artificial Life IX: Proceedings of Ninth International Conference on the Simulations and Synthesis of Living Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
12.
Nolfi, S. (2002). Evolving robots able to self-localize in the environment: The importance of viewing cognition as the result of processes occurring at different time scales. Connection Science, 14, 231—244.
13.
Nolfi, S. (2005a). Behaviour as a complex adaptive system: On the role of self-organization in the development of individual and collective behaviour. ComplexUs, 3—4, 195—203.
14.
Nolfi, S. (2005b). Categories formation in self-organizing embodied agents. In H. Cohen & C. Lefebvre (Eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Oxford: Elsevier .
15.
Nolfi, S., & Floreano, D. (2000). Evolutionary robotics: The biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
16.
Nolfi, S., & Marocco, D. (2001). Evolving robots able to integrate sensory-motor information over time. Theory in Biosciences, 120, 287—310.
17.
Nolfi, S., & Tani, J. (1999). Extracting regularities in space and time through a cascade of prediction networks: The case of a mobile robot navigating in a structured environment. Connection Science, 11, 129—152.
18.
Pfeifer, R., & Scheier, C. (1999). Understanding Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Slocum, A.C., Downey, D.C., & Beer, R.D. (2000). Further experiments in the evolution of minimally cognitive behavior: From perceiving affordances to selective attention. In J. Meyer, A. Berthoz, D. Floreano, H. Roitblat, & S. Wilson , (Eds.), From Animals to Animats 6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
Tani, J., & Fukumura, N. (1997). Self-organizing internal representation in learning of navigation: A physical experiment by the mobile robot Yamabico. Neural Networks, 10, 153—159.
21.
Tani, J., & Nolfi, S. (1999). Learning to perceive the world as articulated: An approach for hierarchical learning in sensory-motor systems. Neural Networks, 12, 1131—1141
22.
Trullier, O., Wiener, S.I., Berthoz, A., & Meyer, J.-A. (1997). Biologically based artificial navigation systems: Review and prospects. Progress in Neurobiology, 51, 483—544.
23.
Varela, F.J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
24.
Vickerstaff, R.J., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2005a). An evolved agent performing efficient path integration based homing and search. In M. S. Capcarrere, A. A., Freitas, P. J. Bentley, & J. Timmis (Eds.), Advances in Artifical Life. Eighth European Conference, ECAL 2005, Proceedings, Berlin: Springer.
25.
Vickerstaff, R.J., & Di Paolo, E.A. (2005b). Evolving neural models of path integration. Journal of Experimental Biology, 208, 3349—3366.
26.
Wolpert, D., & Kawato, M. (1998). Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Networks, 11, 1317—1329.
