In AZD2281 cell line active inference, the carrot can be regarded as prior beliefs (that specify the desired trajectory), while the donkey is compelled by posterior beliefs and classical reflexes to follow the carrot. Finally, active inference provides a particular

interpretation of efference copy (EC) and corollary discharge that predicts the sensory consequences of descending motor signals. In active inference, descending signals are in themselves predictions of sensory consequences (cf. corollary discharge). In this sense, every backward connection in the brain (that conveys top-down predictions) can be regarded as corollary discharge, reporting the predictions of some sensorimotor construct. The fact that high-level (amodal) representations have both motor and sensory consequences highlights the intimate relationship between action and perception. Note that efference copy per se disappears in active inference. This may not be too surprising, given the assertion that the “solutions to the three classical problems of action and perception (the posture-movement problem, problems of kinesthesia, and visual space constancy) offered

by the EC theory in particular or by the internal model theory in general are physiologically unfeasible” (Feldman, 2009). The arguments above are presented in a rather abstract way, without substantiating the assumptions or background on which active inference rests. This omission is probably best addressed by reference to work showing that cost functions and optimal policies can be formulated RG7204 mouse as prior beliefs in the context of active inference (Friston et al., 2009) and that the same scheme can be extended to include heuristic policies (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011) formulated using dynamical systems theory (Friston, 2010). In the motor domain, active inference provides a plausible account of retinal stabilization, oculomotor reflexes, saccadic eye movements, Protein kinase N1 cued reaching, sensorimotor integration, and the learning of autonomous behavior (Friston et al., 2010). In this context, Bayes-optimal sensorimotor integration (Körding and Wolpert, 2004) is an emergent

property that is mandated by absorbing action into perceptual inference. This is illustrated nicely when simulating action observation. An example is provided in Figure 5, in which the same scheme is used to generate autonomous (handwriting) movements and to recognize the same movements when performed by another agent. The equations used in this example can be found in Friston et al. (2011). This example was chosen to show that the same (neuronal) representations play the role of prior beliefs during the prosecution of an action and recognizing the same action when observed. In this sense, the very existence of mirror neurons (that respond selectively to actions and observation of the same action) are an empirical testament to the duality between optimality and inference.