pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.00709 · v2 · pith:CHQNAC25new · submitted 2019-06-24 · 🧬 q-bio.NC

An interdisciplinary overview of developmental indices and behavioral measures of the minimal self

Yasmin Kim Georgie , Guido Schillaci , Verena Vanessa Hafner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 16:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC
keywords minimal selfbody ownershipsense of agencydevelopmental indicesroboticsartificial agentsinterdisciplinary review
0
0 comments X

The pith

Review connects human measures of body ownership and agency to building minimal selves in robots.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This review examines the development of the minimal self in humans along with behavioral measures for its aspects of body ownership and sense of agency. It surveys existing robotics work that attempts to implement these concepts in artificial agents. The central effort is to identify concrete avenues for expanding robotics research using the human developmental indices as a foundation. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper treats these psychological constructs as transferable building blocks that could allow robots to acquire a basic sense of self through staged development.

Core claim

The paper states that discussing the development of the minimal self in humans, the behavioural measures indicating the presence of different aspects of the minimal self namely body ownership and sense of agency, and robotics research investigating these concepts in artificial agents can open avenues for expanding the research in robotics to further explore the development of an artificial minimal self.

What carries the argument

The minimal self, consisting of body ownership and sense of agency, treated as a transferable construct from human developmental psychology to robotic agent design.

If this is right

  • Developmental stages observed in human infants can be used as design templates for progressive self-acquisition in artificial agents.
  • Existing behavioral tests for ownership and agency can be directly adapted to evaluate whether an artificial system has acquired a minimal self.
  • Interdisciplinary mapping of human indices to robotic implementations can guide the creation of new experimental protocols in artificial systems.
  • Robotics platforms can serve as testbeds for refining or falsifying specific claims about how body ownership and agency emerge.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Robots equipped with such minimal selves might exhibit more coherent long-term behavior in unstructured environments because actions are referenced to a persistent bodily model.
  • The same measures could be applied to evaluate whether large language models or embodied agents develop rudimentary self-models when trained on interaction data.
  • Failure to transfer might point to missing ingredients such as intrinsic motivation loops or sensorimotor contingencies not captured by current human-derived tests.

Load-bearing premise

Behavioral measures and developmental concepts from human psychology provide a useful and transferable foundation for designing and evaluating artificial minimal selves in robots.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which robots built using the reviewed human developmental indices and behavioral tests show no measurable improvement in self-related behaviors or interaction performance compared with robots built without them would challenge the transferability premise.

read the original abstract

In this review paper we discuss the development of the minimal self in humans, the behavioural measures indicating the presence of different aspects of the minimal self, namely, body ownership and sense of agency, and also discuss robotics research investigating and developing these concepts in artificial agents. We investigate possible avenues for expanding the research in robotics to further explore the development of an artificial minimal self.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review paper that discusses the development of the minimal self in humans, behavioral measures for aspects such as body ownership and sense of agency, existing robotics research investigating these concepts in artificial agents, and possible avenues for expanding robotics work to explore the development of an artificial minimal self.

Significance. If the literature summary is accurate and comprehensive, the paper could serve as a useful bridge between developmental psychology and robotics by identifying behavioral measures and developmental indices that might transfer to the design and evaluation of artificial agents. Its primary contribution is the synthesis of human studies with robotics efforts and the forward-looking suggestions for future work rather than new empirical results or derivations.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the paper 'investigate[s] possible avenues' but does not indicate the criteria used to select which robotics studies are included or excluded; adding a brief methods paragraph on literature search scope would improve transparency.
  2. Section headings and transitions between the human developmental literature and the robotics subsections could be made more explicit to help readers track the interdisciplinary connections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript as a useful bridge between developmental psychology and robotics, and for recommending minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper is a literature overview summarizing developmental indices and behavioral measures of the minimal self from human psychology and existing robotics efforts, then suggesting possible expansions. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are present. The central claim is a forward-looking suggestion that does not rely on any internal premise reducing to a self-citation chain, self-definition, or fitted input renamed as output. All cited works are external literature reviews or studies, and the argument is self-contained against external benchmarks without any load-bearing reduction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced because the document is a review paper based solely on the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5584 in / 917 out tokens · 20212 ms · 2026-05-25T16:51:48.684052+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Philosophical conceptions of the self: i mplications for cognitive science,

    S. Gallagher, “Philosophical conceptions of the self: i mplications for cognitive science,” Trends in cognitive sciences , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 14– 21, 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Temporal structure of consciousness and minim al self in schizophrenia,

    B. Martin, M. Wittmann, N. Franck, M. Cermolacce, F. Bern a, and A. Giersch, “Temporal structure of consciousness and minim al self in schizophrenia,” Frontiers in psychology , vol. 5, p. 1175, 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Motor simulation and the bodily self,

    F. Ferri, F. Frassinetti, M. Costantini, and V . Gallese, “Motor simulation and the bodily self,” PloS one , vol. 6, no. 3, p. e17927, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Mental self: The person within,

    A. Damasio, “Mental self: The person within,” Nature, vol. 423, no. 6937, p. 227, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Temporal binding and the neura l correlates of sensory awareness,

    A. K. Engel and W. Singer, “Temporal binding and the neura l correlates of sensory awareness,” Trends in cognitive sciences , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 16–25, 2001

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Towards a neurobiological theory o f conscious- ness,

    F. Crick and C. Koch, “Towards a neurobiological theory o f conscious- ness,” in Seminars in the Neurosciences , vol. 2. Saunders Scientific Publications, 1990, pp. 263–275

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Five levels of self-awareness as they unfold early in life,

    P . Rochat, “Five levels of self-awareness as they unfold early in life,” Consciousness and cognition , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 717–731, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Bodily awareness,

    F. de Vignemont, “Bodily awareness,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, spring 2018 ed., E. N. Zalta, Ed. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2018

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Body image and body schema: A conceptual c larifica- tion,

    S. Gallagher, “Body image and body schema: A conceptual c larifica- tion,” The Journal of Mind and Behavior , pp. 541–554, 1986

    work page 1986

  10. [10]

    Somatotopic mapping of the developing sensorim otor cortex in the preterm human brain,

    S. DallOrso, J. Steinweg, A. Allievi, A. Edwards, E. Bur det, and T. Arichi, “Somatotopic mapping of the developing sensorim otor cortex in the preterm human brain,” Cerebral Cortex, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 2507– 2515, 2018

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Fetal sensory recept ors,

    R. M. Bradley and C. M. Mistretta, “Fetal sensory recept ors,” Physio- logical Reviews, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 352–382, 1975

    work page 1975

  12. [12]

    Fetal origin of sensorimotor behavior,

    J. Fagard, R. Esseily, L. Jacquey, K. ORegan, and E. Somo gyi, “Fetal origin of sensorimotor behavior,” Frontiers in neurorobotics , vol. 12, 2018

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Do human fetuses anticipate self-oriented actions? a study by four-dimensional (4d) ul trasonography,

    M. Myowa-Y amakoshi and H. Takeshita, “Do human fetuses anticipate self-oriented actions? a study by four-dimensional (4d) ul trasonography,” Infancy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 289–301, 2006

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    The development of anticipation in the fetus: a longitudinal ac count of human fetal mouth movements in reaction to and anticipation of touch,

    N. Reissland, B. Francis, E. Aydin, J. Mason, and B. Scha al, “The development of anticipation in the fetus: a longitudinal ac count of human fetal mouth movements in reaction to and anticipation of touch,” Developmental psychobiology, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 955–963, 2014

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Evidence of early development of action p lanning in the human foetus: a kinematic study,

    S. Zoia, L. Blason, G. DOttavio, M. Bulgheroni, E. Pezze tta, A. Scabar, and U. Castiello, “Evidence of early development of action p lanning in the human foetus: a kinematic study,” Experimental Brain Research , vol. 176, no. 2, pp. 217–226, 2007

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    The role of self-touch experience in the formation of the self

    M. Hoffmann, “The role of self-touch experience in the f ormation of the self,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.07843 , 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    The neuromuscular maturation of the huma n infant

    M. B. McGraw, “The neuromuscular maturation of the huma n infant.” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine , vol. 15, no. 6, 1943

    work page 1943

  18. [18]

    Development of regional brain glucose m etabolism in relation to behavior and plasticity

    H. T. Chugani, “Development of regional brain glucose m etabolism in relation to behavior and plasticity.” Human behavior and the developing brain, pp. 153–175, 1994

    work page 1994

  19. [19]

    Independent development of the reach and the grasp in spontaneous self-touching by hu man infants in the first 6 months,

    B. L. Thomas, J. M. Karl, and I. Q. Whishaw, “Independent development of the reach and the grasp in spontaneous self-touching by hu man infants in the first 6 months,” Frontiers in psychology , vol. 5, p. 1526, 2015

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Spatio -temporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stim uli,

    S.-J. Blakemore, C. D. Frith, and D. M. Wolpert, “Spatio -temporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stim uli,” Journal of cognitive neuroscience , vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 551–559, 1999

    work page 1999

  21. [21]

    A theory of cortical responses,

    K. Friston, “A theory of cortical responses,” Phil. trans. of the Royal Society B: Biological sciences , vol. 360, no. 1456, pp. 815–836, 2005

    work page 2005

  22. [22]

    Self-perception and action in infancy,

    P . Rochat, “Self-perception and action in infancy,” Experimental brain research, vol. 123, no. 1-2, pp. 102–109, 1998

    work page 1998

  23. [23]

    Mechanisms of in tentional binding and sensory attenuation: The role of temporal predi ction, tem- poral control, identity prediction, and motor prediction

    G. Hughes, A. Desantis, and F. Waszak, “Mechanisms of in tentional binding and sensory attenuation: The role of temporal predi ction, tem- poral control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. ” Psychological bulletin, vol. 139, no. 1, p. 133, 2013

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Development of reaching to the bo dy in early infancy: From experiments to robotic models,

    M. Hoffmann, L. K. Chinn, E. Somogyi, T. Heed, J. Fagard, J. J. Lockman, and J. K. ORegan, “Development of reaching to the bo dy in early infancy: From experiments to robotic models,” in IEEE Int. Conf. on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics . IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Perceived self in infancy,

    P . Rochat and T. Striano, “Perceived self in infancy,” Infant behavior and development, vol. 23, no. 3-4, pp. 513–530, 2000

    work page 2000

  26. [26]

    An embodied brain model of the human foetus,

    Y . Y amada, H. Kanazawa, S. Iwasaki, Y . Tsukahara, O. Iwa ta, S. Y a- mada, and Y . Kuniyoshi, “An embodied brain model of the human foetus,” Scientific reports , vol. 6, p. 27893, 2016

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    Supe r-flexible skin sensors embedded on the whole body, self-organizing based o n haptic interactions,

    T. Noda, T. Miyashita, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita, “Supe r-flexible skin sensors embedded on the whole body, self-organizing based o n haptic interactions,” Human-Robot Interaction in Social Robotics , p. 183, 2012

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    B ody repre- sentations for robot ego-noise modelling and prediction. t owards the development of a sense of agency in artificial agents,

    B. Lara, V . V . Hafner, C.-N. Ritter, and G. Schillaci, “B ody repre- sentations for robot ego-noise modelling and prediction. t owards the development of a sense of agency in artificial agents,” in Proc. of the Artificial Life Conference 2016 13 . MIT Press, 2016, pp. 390–397

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Robotic homunculus: Learning of artificial skin representation in a humanoid robot motivated by primary somatosensory cortex,

    M. Hoffmann, Z. Straka, I. Farkaˇ s, M. V avreˇ cka, and G.Metta, “Robotic homunculus: Learning of artificial skin representation in a humanoid robot motivated by primary somatosensory cortex,” IEEE Trans. on Cognitive and Developmental Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 163–176, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    The encoding of proprioceptive inputs in the brain: knowns and unknowns from a robotic perspective

    M. Hoffmann and N. Bednarova, “The encoding of proprioc eptive inputs in the brain: knowns and unknowns from a robotic perspective ,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.05944, 2016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    V oluntary acti on and conscious awareness,

    P . Haggard, S. Clark, and J. Kalogeras, “V oluntary acti on and conscious awareness,” Nature neuroscience, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 382, 2002

    work page 2002

  32. [32]

    Intentional binding and the s ense of agency: a review,

    J. W. Moore and S. S. Obhi, “Intentional binding and the s ense of agency: a review,” Consciousness and cognition , vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 546– 561, 2012

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Motion-based r obotic self- recognition,

    P . Michel, K. Gold, and B. Scassellati, “Motion-based r obotic self- recognition,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , vol. 3. IEEE, 2004, pp. 2763–2768

    work page 2004

  34. [34]

    A deep convolut ional neural network model for sense of agency and object permanence in ro bots,

    C. Lang, G. Schillaci, and V . V . Hafner, “A deep convolut ional neural network model for sense of agency and object permanence in ro bots,” in Joint IEEE International Conference on Development and Lea rning and Epigenetic Robotics , 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    An interpretation of the selffrom the dynamic al systems per- spective: A constructivist approach,

    J. Tani, “An interpretation of the selffrom the dynamic al systems per- spective: A constructivist approach,” Journal of Consciousness Studies , vol. 5, no. 5-6, pp. 516–542, 1998

    work page 1998

  36. [36]

    Kinem atic cues and recognition of self-generated actions,

    E. Daprati, S. Wriessnegger, and F. Lacquaniti, “Kinem atic cues and recognition of self-generated actions,” Experimental Brain Research, vol. 177, no. 1, pp. 31–44, 2007

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    Sense of agency and intentional binding : How does the brain link voluntary actions with their consequences?

    A. Cavazzana, “Sense of agency and intentional binding : How does the brain link voluntary actions with their consequences?” Ph.D. thesis, Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, University of Padua, Italy, 2016

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    Intentional bin ding is driven by the mere presence of an action and not by motor prediction,

    A. Desantis, G. Hughes, and F. Waszak, “Intentional bin ding is driven by the mere presence of an action and not by motor prediction, ” PLoS one, vol. 7, no. 1, p. e29557, 2012

    work page 2012

  39. [39]

    Rubber hands feeltouch that eyes see,

    M. Botvinick and J. Cohen, “Rubber hands feeltouch that eyes see,” Nature, vol. 391, no. 6669, p. 756, 1998

    work page 1998

  40. [40]

    That’s m y hand! activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb,

    H. H. Ehrsson, C. Spence, and R. E. Passingham, “That’s m y hand! activity in premotor cortex reflects feeling of ownership of a limb,” Science, vol. 305, no. 5685, pp. 875–877, 2004

    work page 2004

  41. [41]

    The rubber hand illusion re visited: vi- suotactile integration and self-attribution

    M. Tsakiris and P . Haggard, “The rubber hand illusion re visited: vi- suotactile integration and self-attribution.” Journal of Exp. Psychology: Human Perception and Performance , vol. 31, no. 1, p. 80, 2005

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    My body in the brain: a neurocognitive mod el of body- ownership,

    M. Tsakiris, “My body in the brain: a neurocognitive mod el of body- ownership,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 703–712, 2010

    work page 2010

  43. [43]

    Projecting sensati ons to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response,

    K. C. Armel and V . S. Ramachandran, “Projecting sensati ons to external objects: evidence from skin conductance response,” Proc. of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences , vol. 270, no. 1523, pp. 1499–1506, 2003

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is your s elicits a cortical anxiety response,

    H. H. Ehrsson, K. Wiech, N. Weiskopf, R. J. Dolan, and R. E . Passingham, “Threatening a rubber hand that you feel is your s elicits a cortical anxiety response,” Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 104, no. 23, pp. 9828–9833, 2007

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    Minimal self-model s and the free energy principle,

    J. Limanowski and F. Blankenburg, “Minimal self-model s and the free energy principle,” Frontiers in human neuroscience, vol. 7, p. 547, 2013

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    The free-energy self: a pred ictive coding account of self-recognition,

    M. A. Apps and M. Tsakiris, “The free-energy self: a pred ictive coding account of self-recognition,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , vol. 41, pp. 85–97, 2014

    work page 2014

  47. [47]

    In- ducing illusory ownership of a virtual body,

    M. Slater, D. P´ erez Marcos, H. Ehrsson, and M. V . Sanche z-Vives, “In- ducing illusory ownership of a virtual body,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 3, p. 29, 2009

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: a dissociation of ownership and agency,

    A. Kalckert and H. H. Ehrsson, “Moving a rubber hand that feels like your own: a dissociation of ownership and agency,” Frontiers in human neuroscience, vol. 6, p. 40, 2012

    work page 2012

  49. [49]

    The role of agency for perceived own ership in the virtual hand illusion,

    K. Ma and B. Hommel, “The role of agency for perceived own ership in the virtual hand illusion,” Consciousness and cognition , vol. 36, pp. 277–288, 2015

    work page 2015

  50. [50]

    Body-ownership for actively operated non-corpor eal objects,

    ——, “Body-ownership for actively operated non-corpor eal objects,” Consciousness and cognition , vol. 36, pp. 75–86, 2015

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Drif ting perceptual patterns suggest prediction errors fusion rather than hypo thesis selec- tion: replicating the rubber-hand illusion on a robot,

    N.-A. Hinz, P . Lanillos, H. Mueller, and G. Cheng, “Drif ting perceptual patterns suggest prediction errors fusion rather than hypo thesis selec- tion: replicating the rubber-hand illusion on a robot,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.06809, 2018

    work page arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Adaptive robot body learning and estimation through predictive coding,

    P . Lanillos and G. Cheng, “Adaptive robot body learning and estimation through predictive coding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03104 , 2018

    work page arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    No causal link between changes in hand position sense and feeling of limb ownership in the rubb er hand illusion,

    Z. Abdulkarim and H. H. Ehrsson, “No causal link between changes in hand position sense and feeling of limb ownership in the rubb er hand illusion,” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics , vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 707–720, 2016

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Proprio ceptive drift without illusions of ownership for rotated hands in the rubb er hand illusion paradigm,

    H. Holle, N. McLatchie, S. Maurer, and J. Ward, “Proprio ceptive drift without illusions of ownership for rotated hands in the rubb er hand illusion paradigm,” Cognitive neuroscience , vol. 2, no. 3-4, pp. 171– 178, 2011

    work page 2011