For mobile robots to communicate meaningfully about their spatial environment, they require personally constructed cognitive maps and social interactions to form languages with shared meanings. Geographic spatial concepts introduce particular problems for grounding—connecting a word to its referent in the world—because such concepts cannot be directly and solely based on sensory perceptions. In this article we investigate the grounding of geographic spatial concepts using mobile robots with cognitive maps, called Lingodroids. Languages were established through structured interactions between pairs of robots called where-are-we conversations. The robots used a novel method, termed the distributed lexicon table, to create flexible concepts. This method enabled words for locations, termed toponyms, to be grounded through experience. Their understanding of the meaning of words was demonstrated using go-to games in which the robots independently navigated to named locations. Studies in real and virtual reality worlds show that the system is effective at learning spatial language: robots learn words easily—in a single trial as children do—and the words and their meaning are sufficiently robust for use in real world tasks.
AndersonP.MorrisR.AmaralD.BlissT.O’KeefeJ. (Eds.). (2007). The hippocampus book. New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
ArleoA.GerstnerW. (2000). Spatial cognition and neuro-mimetic navigation: A model of hippocampal place cell activity. Biological Cybernetics, 83(3), 287–299.
3.
BanquetJ. P.GaussierP.QuoyM.RevelA.BurnodY. (2005). A hierarchy of associations in hippocampo-cortical systems: Cognitive maps and navigation strategies. Neural Computation, 17(6), 1339–1384.
4.
BartlettM.KazakovD. (2005). The origins of syntax: from navigation to language. Connection Science, 17(3–4), 271–288.
5.
BataliJ. (1998). Computational simulations of the emergence of grammar. In HurfordJ. R.Studdert-KennedyM.KnightC. (Eds.), Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases (pp. 405–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BelpaemeT.BleysJ. (2005). Explaining universal color categories through a constrained acquisition process. Adaptive Behavior, 13(4), 293–310.
7.
BillardA.DautenhahnK. (1999). Experiments in learning by imitation – grounding and use of communication in robotic agents. Adaptive Behavior, 7, 415–438.
8.
BleysJ.LoetzschM.SprangerM.SteelsL. (2009). The grounded colour naming game In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (Ro-Man 2009). Toyama, Japan, 28 September 2009.
9.
BlockH. D.MoultonJ.RobinsonG. M. (1975). Natural language acquisition by a robot. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 7(4), 571–608.
10.
BodíkP.TakáčM. (2003). Formation of a common spatial lexicon and its change in a community of moving agents. In TessemB.Ala-SiuruP.DohertyP.MayohB. (Eds.), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications: Eighth Scandinavian Conference on Artificial Intelligence SCAI’03 (pp. 37–46). Amsterdam: IOS Press Inc.
11.
BrooksR. A. (1990). Elephants don’t play chess. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 6(1–2), 3–15.
12.
BurgessN.DonnettJ. G.JefferyK. J.O’KeefeJ. (1997). Robotic and neuronal simulation of the hippocampus and rat navigation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 352(1360), 1535–1543.
13.
CangelosiA. (2001). Evolution of communication and language using signals, symbols, and words. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 5(2), 93–101.
14.
CangelosiA. (2006). The grounding and sharing of symbols. Pragmatics and Cognition, 14(2), 275–285.
15.
CangelosiA. (2011). Solutions and open challenges for the symbol grounding problem. International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems, 1(1), 49–54.
16.
CangelosiA.GrecoA.HarnadS. (2002). Symbol grounding and the symbolic theft hypothesis. In CangelosiA.ParisiD. (Eds.), Simulating the evolution of language (pp. 191–210). London: Springer.
17.
CangelosiA.ParisiD. (1998). The emergence of a ‘language’ in an evolving population of neural networks. Connection Science, 10(2), 83–97.
18.
CangelosiA.RigaT. (2006). An embodied model for sensorimotor grounding and grounding transfer: Experiments with epigenetic robots. Cognitive Science, 30(4), 673–689.
19.
ClarkH. H.BrennanS. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In ResnickL. B.LevineJ. M.TeasleyS. D. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
20.
de JongE. D. (1998). The development of a lexicon based on behavior. In La PoutreH.van den HerikJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Netherlands/Belgium Conference on Artificial Intelligence (NAIC’98) (pp. 27–36). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CWI.
21.
de VegaM.GlenbergA. M.GraesserA. C. (2008). Symbols and embodiment: debates on meaning and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
EvansN.LevinsonS. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448.
23.
FleischerJ.ShapiroJ. (2004). Imitation is not enough for lexicon learning. In SchaalS.IjspeertA.BillardA.VijayakumarS.HallumJ.MeyerJ.-A. (Eds.), From Animals to Animats 8: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on the Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (pp. 477–486). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
GudwinR. (2011). The icon grounding problem. International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems, 1(1), 73.
25.
HarnadS. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 42, 335–346).
26.
HurfordJ. R. (1989). Biological evolution of the saussurean sign as a component of the language acquisition device. Lingua, 77, 187–222).
27.
JungD.ZelinskyA. (2000). Grounded symbolic communication between heterogeneous cooperating robots. Autonomous Robots, 8(3), 269–292.
28.
KaplanF.HafnerV. V. (2006). The challenges of joint attention. Interaction Studies, 7(2), 135–169.
29.
KirbyS. (2001). Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure – an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 5(2), 102–110.
30.
KirbyS.HurfordJ. R. (2002). The emergence of linguistic structure: an overview of the iterated learning model. In CangelosiA.ParisiD. (Eds.), Simulating the evolution of language (pp. 121–148). London: Springer Verlag.
31.
KrichmarJ.SethA.NitzD.FleischerJ.EdelmanG. (2005). Spatial navigation and causal analysis in a brain-based device modeling cortical-hippocampal interactions. Neuroinformatics, 3(3), 197–221.
32.
MavridisN.RoyD. (2006). Grounded situation models for robots: Where words and percepts meet. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Beijing, China, 9-15 October 2006.
33.
MilfordM.WyethG. (2010). Persistent navigation and mapping using a biologically inspired SLAM system. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 29(9), 1131–1153.
34.
MilfordM.WyethG.PrasserD. (2004). Simultaneous localisation and mapping from natural landmarks using RatSLAM. In BarnesN.AustinD. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation. Canberra. Australia, December 6-8 2004.
35.
MukherjeeA.TriaF.BaronchelliA.PuglisiA.LoretoV. (2011). Aging in language dynamics. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16677.
36.
NolfiS.MirolliM. (2010). Evolution of communication and language in embodied agents. Berlin: Springer.
37.
NottaleM.BaillieJ.-C. (2007). Talking robots: grounding a shared lexicon in an unconstrained environment. In BerthouzeL.PrinceC. G.LittmanM.KozimaH.BalkeniusC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Epigenetic Robotics: Modeling Cognitive Development in Robotic Systems. Lund: Lund University Cognitive Studies. Piscataway, NJ, USA, 5-7 November 2007.
38.
O’KeefeJ.NadelL. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
OgdenC. K.RichardsI. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning: a study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
40.
PeirceC. S. (1931–1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vol. 1–6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
PeuquetD. J. (2001). Making space for time: Issues in space-time data representation. GeoInformatica, 5(1), 11–32.
42.
QuinnM. (2001). Evolving communication without dedicated communication channels. In KelemenJ.SosikP. (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: 6th European conference, ECAL 2001, Prague, Czech Republic, September 2001 (pp. 357–366). Berlin: Springer.
43.
RoyD.HsiaoK.-Y.MavridisN. (2003). Conversational robots: building blocks for grounding word meaning. Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL03 Workshop on Learning Word Meaning from Non-Linguistic Data. Edmonton, Canada, 31 May 2003.
44.
RoyD.HsiaoK.-Y.MavridisN. (2004). Mental imagery for a conversational robot. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, 34(3), 1374–1383.
45.
SchulzR.PrasserD.StockwellP.WyethG.WilesJ. (2008). The formation, generative power, and evolution of toponyms: Grounding a spatial vocabulary in a cognitive map. In SmithA. D. M.SmithK.Ferrer i CanchoR. (Eds.), The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference (EVOLANG7) (pp. 267–274). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
46.
SchulzR.StockwellP.WakabayashiM.WilesJ. (2006). Towards a spatial language for mobile robots. In CangelosiA.SmithA. D. M.SmithK. (Eds.), The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference (EVOLANG6) (pp. 291–298). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
47.
SchulzR.WyethG.WilesJ. (2011). Are we there yet? Grounding temporal concepts in shared journeys. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 3(2), 163–175.
48.
SiskindJ. M. (1996). A computational study of cross-situational techniques for learning word-to-meaning mappings. Cognition, 61(1–2), 39–91.
49.
SmithA. D. M. (2001). Establishing communication systems without explicit meaning transmission. In KelemenJ.SosikP. (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: 6th European conference, ECAL 2001, Prague, Czech Republic, September 2001 (pp. 381–390). Berlin: Springer.
50.
SmithA. D. M. (2003). Intelligent meaning creation in a clumpy world helps communication. Artificial Life, 9(2), 175–190.
51.
SmithA. D. M. (2007). Language change and the inference of meaning. In LyonC.NehanivC.CangelosiA. (Eds.), Emergence of communication and language (pp. 323–337). London: Springer.
52.
SmithL.GasserM. (2005). The development of embodied cognition: Six lessons from babies. Artificial Life, 11(1–2), 13–29.
53.
SprangerM.PauwS.LoetzschM. (2010). Open-ended semantics co-evolving with spatial language. In SmithA. D. M.SchouwstraM.de BoerB.SmithK. (Eds.), The Evolution of Language: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference (EVOLANG8) (pp. 297–304). Singapore: World Scientific.
54.
SteelsL. (1995). A self-organizing spatial vocabulary. Artificial Life, 2(3), 319–332.
55.
SteelsL. (2001). Language games for autonomous robots. IEEE Intelligent systems, 16(5), 16–22.
56.
SteelsL. (2008). The symbol grounding problem has been solved. So what’s next? In De VegaM.GlenbergA. M.GraesserA. C. (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 223–244). New York: Oxford University Press.
57.
SteelsL.BelpaemeT. (2005a). Coordinating perceptually grounded categories through language: A case study for colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 469–529.
58.
SteelsL.BelpaemeT. (2005b). The semiotic dynamics of colour. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 515–524.
59.
SteelsL.KaplanF. (2001). AIBO’s first words. The social learning of language and meaning. Evolution of Communication, 4(1), 3–32.
60.
SteelsL.KaplanF.McIntyreA.Van LooverenJ. (2000). Crucial factors in the origins of word-meaning. In WrayA. (Ed.), The transition to language (pp. 252–271). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61.
SteelsL.LoetzschM. (2007). Perspective alignment in spatial language. In CoventryK. R.TenbrinkT.BatemanJ. A. (Eds.), Spatial language and dialogue (pp. 70–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
62.
TolmanE. C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. The Psychological Review, 55(4), 189–208.
63.
TonkesB.BlairA.WilesJ. (2000). Evolving learnable languages. In SollaS. A.LeenT. K.MullerK.-R. (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 12 (pp. 66–72). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64.
VogtP. (2000a). Bootstrapping grounded symbols by minimal autonomous robots. Evolution of Communication, 4(1), 87–116.
65.
VogtP. (2000b). Grounding language about actions: Mobile robots playing follow me games. In MeyerJ. A.BerthozA.FloreanoD.RoitblatH.WilsonS. W. (Eds.), From Animals to Animats 6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (SAB00). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66.
VogtP. (2002). The physical symbol grounding problem. Cognitive Systems Research, 3(3), 429–457.
67.
VogtP. (2004). Minimum cost and the emergence of the Zipf-Mandelbrot law. In PollackJ.BedauM. A.HusbandsP.IkegamiT.WatsonR. A. (Eds.), Artificial Life IX: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68.
VogtP. (2007). Language evolution and robotics: Issues in symbol grounding and language acquisition. In LoulaA.GudwinR.QueirozJ. (Eds.), Artificial cognition systems (pp. 176–209). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
69.
VogtP.SmithA. D. M. (2005). Learning colour words is slow: A cross-situational learning account. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(4), 509–510.
70.
WebbB. (2001). Can robots make good models of biological behaviour?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(6), 1033–1050.
71.
WellensP.LoetzschM.SteelsL. (2008). Flexible word meaning in embodied agents. Connection Science, 20(2), 173–191.
72.
WittgensteinL. (1953). Philosophical investigations (AnscombeG. E. M. Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.
