NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/bit/listserv/csgl/1904

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 1.6 KB | 37 lines

Comments: Gated by [e-mail]
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!EMUNIX.EMICH.EDU!PSY_DELPRATO
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:31:43 -0500
Sender:       "Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)" <[e-mail]>
From:         [e-mail]
Subject:      Feedback Is Too Delayed
Lines: 25

[FROM: Dennis Delprato (921218)]

Two more impediments to mainstream experimental
psychologists' giving serious consideration to PCT:

1. Widespread thinking of two basic choices: (a) central
control and (b) closed-loop (or input or sensory or peripheral
feedback) control, plus, of course, the eclectic combination
of the two.  According to this thinking, the closed-loop theory
is that sensory "information" from one movement serves to
instigate the next movement.  There may even be a comparator
involved (e.g., Bernstein).  Now, none of this has anything to
do with PCT--the very idea of central vs. peripheral control
is by the boards.  But, I do not believe PCT theorists have
done a good job of addressing how their approach departs from
this sort of  very elementary, widely entrenched thinking.

2. One of the most frequently-heard reasons for ignoring
feedback control (in framework of above) is that feedback is
too slow relative to the speed of movements that can be made.
Can anyone cite me a publication in which this issue is
directly addressed from the standpoint of PCT?  I am
looking for a coherent presentation that is data-based.

Dennis Delprato