IEEE TRANSACTIONS

COMMUNICATIONS,
ON

VOL. COM-21, NO. 12, DECEMBER

1 3 4159 7 3

and Europzan areas where he designed and installed LF and HF audio teletype systems. He
engaged in signal andcomponent design for
UHF and microwave scatter and satellite communications systems. From1967to1969he
was a manager of .the ALTAIR radar site at
Kwajalein. Since 1970, as the Assistant Leader
of the Educational TechnologyGroup atLincoln
Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lexington,he has workedon the Lincoln
Training System.

WilliamP. Harris received the Ph.D. degree in

psychology fromthe
University of Chicago,
Chicago, Ill., in, 1956.
He joined Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, in 1952.
His early contributions to the Laboratory were
in the area of human factors design and operational testing for SAGE, and several subsequent
large scale military systems. He assisted in the
design and program management of the Reckoner facility onthe IBM 360/67. His current
work is on the Lincoln Training System as Leader of the Educational
Technology Group. He has published papers
on
human
decision
processes, on-line computing, a three-dimensional display and applications of LTS.
David Karp received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the
City College of New York, New York, N.Y. in 1951.
He worked with Philco Corporation, Philadelphia, Pa., from 1951 to
1955 as a field engineer assigned to the U.S. Air Force in North Atlantic

The Bidirectional Communication TheoryA Generalization. of Information Theory

Abstract-A generalization of information theory is presentedwith

the aim of distinguishing the direction of information flow for mutually
coupledstatistical systems. The bidirectionalcommunication theory
refers totwo systems. Twodirectedtransinformationsaredefined
which are a measure of the statistical coupling between the systems.
Their sum equals Shannons transinformation. An information flow
diagram explains the relationbetween the directedtransinformations
and theentropies of the sources. An extension to a group of such
systems has also been proposed. The theory is able to describe the informational relationships between living beings and other multivariate
complex systems as encountered in economy. An application example
referring to groupbehavior with monkeys is given.
Paper approved by the Associate Editor for Communication Theory
of the IEEE Communications Society for publication after presentation
at the 1968 Cybernetics Congress, Munich, Germany. Manuscript received August 28, 1972; revised June 11, 1973.
The author is with the Institut fur Nachrichtentechnik,Technische
Universitat, Munich, Germany.

I. INTRODUCTION

N THISpaper thetheory of bidirectionalcommunication is discussed. This theory is an extension of Shannons

information theory: its definitions are used as far as possible.
While Shannons theory describes a unidirectional transmission
linkage (transmissionchannel), thetheory presentedhere is
concerned with a bidirectional linkage (communication). The
limiting case of a unidirectional transinformation yields
Shannons channel.
The
receiver for
the
proposed communication model is, in contrast with Shannons channel, an
active statistical generator and therefore it is not possible to
distinguish it from the transmitter.
This theory resulted from the desire to describe generation
living beings, especially
and processing of informationby
humans, as well as information transmission from man to man.

1346

Forthispurpose
the following essential characteristics are
considered.
1) Information transmitter and receiver of a human being
are identical; a person has a characteristic information source
which is differentfromtheinformation
source ofanother
person. Therefore a mansupplies a stochastic processwhich
is typical for him with an entropy which characterizes him.
2) Information transmission betweentwo persons is considered as a !stochastic synchronization of thisstochastic
process. The entropy of each process has therefore a free
and a dependent part.
The latter represents the received
transinformation.
To describe this idea mathematically, the theory of Markov
processes is used;and stationarity has tobe assumed.
Even the philosophers of antiquity tried to describe the
process of thinking bymeans of association andmemory.
Aristotle described with a remarkable clearness the ,sequence
of imagination as a statistical process with inner linkage, as we
would call it liowadays, in his short essay Memory and
Recollection. According to him, recollection is characterized
by the fact that movements (i.e., imagination) follow each
otherhabitually
(i.e., mostly).The
presentsequence
is
essentially determined by the sequence of the earlier process.
Caused by the mechanical systems of Galilei andNewton, the
psychology of association came to a concept of a mechanisticdeterministic behavior in its search fora physics of soul.
Locke
and
Hartley
in
England and Herbart in Germany
attributedthe process of thinkingtoa causally determined
mechanism of association.This view has been corrected by
the modern psychology of thinking which recognized the importanceofintuition.Naturally,the
value of all of these
theories is limited because the statements cannot be quantized.
At theendofthe19thcentury,Galton,
Ebbinghaus,and
Wundt began with the experimentalinvestigation of association
processes, including association sequences. Finally, Shannons
fundamental work [ 11 rendered a quantitative description and
therefore made ameasuring of information possible.
The idea ofthe bidirectional communicationtheory was
first presentedbytheauthoratthecybernetics
congress at
Kiel, Germany, in September 1965 [2] and in May 1966 with
a lecture at the congress of the Popov Society in Moscow. An
explicit representation of this theory isgiven in thejournal
Kybernetik [ 3 ] , and short representations are given in [4] and
[ 5 ] . Related mathematicalproofs are presented in [6] and
[7]. An extension to the communication of a group has been
given byNeuburger [8], [9]. Thebidirectionalcommunication theory has beenapplied so far with behavioral sciences
[IO], [ 111 . Other applications for statistically coupled
systems, i.e., economical systems,are possible.
Two-way communication channels have beeninvestigated
earlier by Shannon and others, especially the feedback channel
[ 12]., [ 131 and the crosstalk channel [ 141 . In these investigations, however, the conventional definitionof transinformation
is used, and the information source is considered independent
and not statistically dependent, as in the present work.
The same applies for previous work with the aim to investigatemultivariate
correlation using informationalquantities

IEEE TRANSACTIONS O N COMMUNICATIONS, DECEMBER 1973

[ 151 - [ 171 . The conventional information theory is capable

of giving a generalized measure of correlation, but not of distinguishing the direction of information flow. This exactly is
the aim of the bidirectional communication theory.
Inthe
following part,ashort
description o f Shannons
channel with inner statistical linkages between the symbols i s
presented. Then the model of a communication is established.
The last part is a mathematical representation of communication, and the variables of the directed information are defined.
Information flow diagrams are presentedforillustration.
There it can be seen that Shannons information channel 1s a
special case of the more general communication theory given
in this pqper.
11. SHANNONSTRANSMISSIONCHANNEL

Fig. 1 shows the block diagram of unidirectionaltransmission according to Shannon. It consists of a message source
a coding device (C) which codes the message in an appro:
priate way for the transmission, the transmission channel,a
and the receiver (R). The channel (Ch)
decoding device (D),
contains a noise source ( N ) which represents the disturbance.
It is essential foraquantitativedescription
of information
transmission. Thus the block diagram contains two statistical
generators: the message source Q andthe noise source N .
According to the usual symbolism, the sources are represented
by circles; all the other parts are passive and drawn as boxes.
The receiver is passive in contrast to the bidirectional communication model. The receiver usually is considered as ideal,
supposing thatit canevaluate the received message in its
statistical propertiesoptimally (i.e., it is supposed to have
storage ofinfinite size). Because of these assumptions,the
transmissionbecomes independent of the receiver and is determined solely by the properties of the message sourceand
thechannel.Toapply
Shannons formulasforthe
general
case of a channel with memory considered here, stationarity
must be assumed. A sequence of symbols x, = x l x 2 . . . at the
receiver is observed. Both transmitted and received sequences
are supposed to have n symbols. The followingprobabilities
are defined.

(e),

p(x,)

Probability
for
the
occurrence
of
the

sequence

x, at the transmitter.

pb,)

Probability
for
the
occurrence
of
the
sequence
receiver.
p ( x , y,) Joint probability for the occurrence of x , and y,.
p(x,ly,) Conditionalprobability.for
t h e occurrenceof
x, when y , is known.
p b , [x,) Conditionalprobabilityfortheoccurrenceof
y , when x
, is known.
.

yn the
at

{ } designates theexpectation value (mean value). Theentropies related to onesymbol can be calculated fromthe
probabilities as follows.
Entropy at the transmitter:
1
H ( x ) = lim - { - log p ( x , ) } .
n-+m

Entropy at the receiver:

1347

MARKO: BIDIRECTIONAL COMMUNICATION THEORY

source

coder

decoder

rqwrer

channel

Ch

! y

1 noire

Fig. 1. Shannons block schematic of a Unidirectional communication

channel.

processes). Furthermore, they have, like Shannons channel, a

codingand a decoding device (neurophysiologically the deand the coding
coding device corresponds totheafferent
device to the efferent signal processing). M1 andM2 are c w Joint entropy:
nectedbytwo
transmissionchannels(corresponding
to this
connection is the external world, as, far example, an optical
or acoustical linkage). These channelscangenerally,
as in
Shannons case, be disturbed. However, it is not necessary to
Equivocation:
consider the disturbances isolated; their influence is contained
in the statistical description of the model.
The essential characterigics of theinformation generation
and transmission according to this conception are as follows.
Irrelevancy:
1) The receiver is active and identical with the transmitter
of the same side. It generates information continuously, even
when both transmission channels are interrupted.
2) The transinformation transmitted during a linkage causes
The mean transinformation between the
sequence x and the
a .stochastic synchronization of the receiver, and because of
sequence y , referred to one symbol pair, is found tobe
this it influences its information.
T = H ( x ) -t H ( Y ) - H(x, V >
Fig. 3 shows for M 1 and M 2 the stochastic processes and
the
statisticalcoupling,which is shownby the dashed lines.
=Nx)- f w y )
The choice of the present message elements (symbols) is de=H(y) - H W ) .
( 6 ) pendent on the past symbols of its own process and the past
This is the fundamental law of the information theory. It can symbols of theother process. Influencing atthe same time
be written in those three versions because of the relation
doesnottake
place; with this,causality
has been taken
into account.
P(xny,)=p(xnIY,).P~n)=pcV,lxn).p(xn).
Thefollowingdefinitions
are valid for Markov processes
with decreasing statistical linkages; however, it has to be menThe coding theorems of information andtransinfoymation-not
tionedthat
all variables defined exist in amore
general
being discussed in this paper-show that a channel defined in
themanner
described above is actually able to transmit representationfor whichonly stationarity is required.The
messages of T binary digits (bits) with an arbitrary small error entropy of the two processes is denoted H1 and H z . The directed mean transinformation is denoted T I 2for the direction
probability if the message considered is infinitely long.
Shannons conception describes a unidirectional linkage M2 M I and T21 for MI M2 (the first index refers to the
with an active transmitter and a passive receiver. To apply this receiver, the second to the transmitter).
Three cases can be distinguished.
conception f0r.a bidirectional linkage, it could be repeated for
I ) Recoupling, M1 I M 2 : The linkage is interrupted in both
the opposite direction. This, however, would yield two indedirections. Therefore, T 1 2= 0 and TZ1 =O. The two stochastic
pendent systems where both directions are repeated entirely.
processes are independent of one another.
A N D THE
111. THE MODEL OF A COMMUNICATION
2 ) Monologue, M1 + M 2 orM2 -+MI: The linkage is interGENERATION
OF INFORMATION
rupted only in one direction, for instance, the lower of Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 shows the block diagram of the new conception. It is Then M 2 is the transmitter and M1 is the receiver. Now the
process of MI is
supposed to describe the communication between two persons process of M 2 is not influenced;the
(from here on denoted M1 and M 2 ) information-theoretically. stochastically synchronized. Consequently TZl = 0 and
Both have as an essential part the information source Ql , re- T I exists.
3) Dialogue, M1 2 M 2 : The linkage exists in both direcspectively, Q 2 , two statistical generators with a symbol alphaprocessesinfluence each other.
bet which may be generally different (the information which tions, and therefore the two
T
1
2
as
well
as
T2,
exist.
Generally,
they produce may be interpreted psychologically as conscious
+

-+

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, DECEMBER 1973

1348

Directed transinformation M1

Fig. 3. Time run of the stochastic processes of M1 and M2 and their

statistical interdependence.

--f

M2 :

Coincidence M1 +-+ M 2 :

The last case (dialogue) is the most general: the first two
cases are contained in it as special cases. Thedefinitions of
the following part therefore refer to this general case.

According to these definitions,thetotalinformation

is
single process. It can be
equal to the usual entropyofthe
Iv. MATHEMATICALDESCRIPTIONOF COMMUNICATION, shown, for example in [ 6 ] ,that (7) and (1) correspond; the
DEFINITIONOF THE DIRECTED TRANSINFORMATION same is valid for (10) and (2). The free information is the
A N D THE FREEINFORMATION
entropy of one process with knowledge of theother. NuThe following.conditiona1 probabilities are to be defined: x merically it is naturally smaller than the entropy without this
is a symbol of M1, and y is a symbol ofM2 at the same time. knowledge. The difference of
T 1 2= H1 - F1
entropy
designates
the
statistical
influence
of
the
second
process on the
p(xl x,)
Conditionalprobabilityfortheoccurrenceof
x
first
process
and
is
defined
as
the
directed
transinformation.
when n previous symbols x, of the own process
Furthermore, it can be shown [ 6 ] that the coincidence acare known.
cording
to (13) agrees with Shannons transinformation equap ( y I y,)
Similarly.
(6):
tion
p(xl x,y,)
Conditional probability for the occurrence of x
when n previous symbols of the own process
x, as well as of the otherprocess yn are known.
p(yly,x,)
Similarly.
as before,of
decreasing statistical
p(xyl xny,) Conditional probability for the occurrence of x withtheassumption,
and y when n previous symbols of both pro- linkages.
It could be called undirected or total transinformation.
cesses are known.
It couples the two processes in a symmetrical manner; thereThe equations
fore it does not
have a special direction.The followingimportant
relation
for
the coincidence is valid:
P(xlxnyn) = ~ ( x l x m ~ m )

K =-TI2-I-T21.

P(YIYnXn) = ~ ( Y l ~ m x m )
are valid for Markov processes of the order m when n 2 m .
The transition probabilities p(xl xmym)and p(ylymxm)
determine the two stochastic processes completely; therefore
they can be designated as generator probabilities.
The symbol { } represents expectation values. The following equations represent mean information values per symbol
(entropy), according to the following definitions.
Total information ofMI :

H1= lim { - log p(x)x,)}.

n-*-

(7)

Free information o f M l :

F 1 = lim { - logp(xlx,y,)}.
n+

For the case monologue, one of the two transinformations

vanishes; therefore the other transinformation is equal to the
coincidence and to Shannons transinformation. With this, it
is proven that Shannons channel represents a
special case of
the bidirectional communication.
All the variables defined above are positive. Thedirected
transinformation represents the information gain for the next
own produced symbol due to the received message. The total
information is theentropy of theown process; ithasone
part which is due tothe
received transinformation, and
another part, the free information; this can be shown from
the definitions since

(8)

Directed transinformationM 2 -+MI :

Hi

= Ti2

H2

+ Fl

T21 -t F2.

Finally, the following conditionalentropies,

entropies, are introduced:
Total information ofM 2 :

R 1 = H 1 - K =F1
R2

Free information ofM 2 :

(14)

=Hz

T21
- K = F 2 - T12.
-

(15)
(1 6 )

called residual
(17)

(18)

Then the above relations can be represented clearly by the information flow diagram of Fig. 4. The two stochastical
generators of MI and M 2 generate thefreeinformation. At
the nodes (15)-( 18) are valid as Kirchhoff laws.

MARKO: BIDIRECTIONAL COMMUNICATION THEORY

1349

T12

Fig. 4. Information flow diagram with a bidirectional communication.

Fig. 4 shows, for example, that the total information H 1 is

composed of the freegenerated information F 1 and the received transinformation T 12 . In the transmission direction
T 1 2 hasto be subtracted,forit
is already knownbythe
counterpart. F 1 is then transmitted, but due to the absence of
a strong coupling, the residual entropy R 1 is subtracted. .This
may be interpreted as the effect of disturbances, if desired.
Finally, TZ1reaches the counterpart and yields together with
his free generated information F2 to its total information H z .
For the opposite direction, thesame reasoning holds.
Fig. 5 represents the special case of monologue M 2 +M1 .
It corresponds to Shannons unidirectional transmission channel because TZ1= 0. Here R 2 represents the equivocation and
R = F 1 the irrelevancy.
Fig. 6 shows finally theinformation flow diagram for the
special case of decoupling.
Now the laws which the information flows obey are considered. From Fig. 4 it follows that the sum of the arriving
currents has to be equal to the sum of the leaving currents:

F1 + F z = R I + R , + K = H 1+ H z K
- .

(19)

From this we get an important statement. The larger the coincidence, that is, thetotaltransmittedtransinformation
in
both directions, the smaller is (for given entropies H 1 and H z )
the sum of the free informations. An effective communication
limits the sum of the free generated information, which seems
to be logical because of thestrong coupling of the .two
processes in this case. There is another limitation for the magnitude of the transinformation flows whichresults from the
identity of thetotalinformation defined herewith Shannons
entropy. The following inequalities are valid, since Shannons
transinformation, here the coincidence, is always less than
H(x) as well as H ( y ) .

H1 & K
Hz

2K.

(20)

R1

Fig. 5. Information flow diagram with a monologue M2 + M I .

t
Rl=Hl

Fig. 6. Information flow diagram with decoupling.

clear are (22)and (23). Theystatethatthe

received transinformation at M 1 cannot be larger than the freegenerated
information of M 2 . It is not possible, for example, that the
and retransinformation generatedby M1 canbereflected
mitted by M 2 because M1 knows this information already.
Because of this limitation, no loop current can develop in the
loop of Fig. 4. The two transinformations as well as the coincidence become maximum if the ine,qualities become equations. This case is called maximum coupling. If the relations

Tl2 = F2

(26)

T21 =F1

(27)

exist, then the information flow diagram of Fig. 7 is valid. It

can be seen thatthefreeinformation
of theoppositeend
appears as transinformation; that means it is accepted entirely.
Both residual entropies vanish. The total information in both
cases has the same magnitude and is composed of the sum of
the two free informations.
It seems to be meaningful to define a stochastical degree of
synchronization or-psychologically-a
degree of perception which is given by the received transinformation referred
to the total information.

(21)

Inserting this in(1 5)-( 18) yields

u1 as well as u2 can vary between 0 and 1. The case u1 = 1 is

With this the directed transinformations are limited. Especially

called suggestion. The free informationatthe

receiver
vanishes, and the total information is only determined by the
received transinformation. It can be shown that either u1 = 1
same time, can
or u2 = 1, but not both equal to one at the

1350

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS, DECEMBER 1973

T2 1

M1

'G1

,suggestion M2 +Ml

Fig. 7. Information flow diagram with maximum coupling.

/
decouplmg

occur, i.e., a suggestion in both directions at the same time is

impossible. For the sum of the two degrees of synchronization
the following holds generally:

Fig. 8. Possible values of the degrees of synchronization

Dominant
animal

171

and 172.

Subdominod

onimd

"dictator"-

<

Tl2
T2 1
= 1.
T12 + T21 T21 + T12

tehaviour

It may be noted that the minimum values for F1 and F2 are

"hero"introduced in this equation according to (22) and (23). The
behviour
equality sign holds for the case of maximum coupling, according to (26) and (27). This means that ul + u2 = 1 for maximum coupling. Given this case, ul = 1 corresponds to the Fig. 9. Information flow diagram for bidirectional communication as
case of suggestion M 2 M I , and u2 = 1 to the case of sug- group behavior between two monkeys. (All figures given by bit/action.)
gestion M 1-+ M2.
1) Thebehavior of "dictator"inwhich
the free action as
Fig. 8 shows the possible values of u1 and u2 according to
the free entropyofthedominant
animal is
(30). They are situated within a rectangulartriangle.
The expressedby
The major
hypotenuse represents the case of maximum coupling. The greater as comparedwiththesubdominantone.
(ul = 0 , re- behavioral influence as expressed by the directed transinformatwo cathetusses correspondtothemonologue
spectively, u2 = 0 ) and therefore to,Shannon's unidirectional tion goes.from the dominant to the subdominant animal.
2) The behavior of "hero" in which the free actions of both
channel.Twocornerpoints
describe thesuggestion,andthe
origin means decoupling.The
diagram contains all special animals are about equal. Most of the behavioral influence goes
the opposite direction, namely, from the subdominant
to the
cases, and showsinwhich
mannerthebidirectionalcommunication is a generalization of Shannon's information theory. dominant animal.
The"dictator"
modification is unstable. It occurred imWith the definitions suggested in this paper, it seems to be
possible to give a quantitative description of the communica- mediately afterthe establishment of thedominantrelationtionbetweenhuman
beings in termsofacommunication
ship,and changed continuouslyinabout 6 weeks time into
theory. The mathematical modelrequires the existence of the "hero" modification, which proved to be the stable one.
two (or more) statistical processes, and describes their mutual
The observations and evaluations have been performed as a
coupling by means of a stochastical synchronization.
cooperationbetweentheInstitutfurNachrichtentechnik
of
the TechnischeHochschule,
Munchen,and
Deutsche ForV. APPLICATIONS
schungsanstalt fur Psychiatrie, Munchen, by W. Mayer.
The bidirectional communication theory has been applied to
In biologyandsociology,
communication theory seems to
the social behavior ofmonkeys [ 111. Twomonkeysofa
have wideapplications due to the fact that
living beings are
social group have been put together in one cage and their ac- (by their actions) sources of information which influence each
tions have been observed and registered for a period of 15 min. other in all possible directions.
Five typical behavioral activities (seating, leaving, genital disIn order to avoid misunderstanding, it has to be mentioned
play,churrcall[expressing
aggressive motivation] , pushing) that the present theory is just able to describe the communicaformed two statistical time sequencesto which the bidirectional tion between two persons or between two living beings only
view. Thelimited
communicationtheoryhas
beenapplied.Theresults
were from an informationtheoreticalpointof
typical for the social relation and agreed for each selected pair importance of this view results from the definition of the inof two individuals. Two already known modifications of the formation based on the probability of the message. Furtherdominant behaviorshowedtypical
values with regard to the more, this conception is onlya first approximation of this
communication quantities (see Fig. 9).
problem because stationarity is assumed, therefore excluding
+

'

MARKO: BIDIRECTIONAL COMMUNICATION THEORY

learning processes. An extensiontothenonstationary,

respectively, the quasi-stationary case considering learning and
forgetting, seems to be possible and meaningful. Furthermore,
an extension of this theory to communication relations within
a group has been done in [9]. Using this, the investigation of
multivariatesystems,i.e.,socioeconomicalsystems,
seems to
be possible in a similar way. The ability of distinguishing the
direction of information flow with this theory may prove to
be a useful tool for examining multivariate complex systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to thank Dr. Neuburger, who helped with
many fruitful discussions and mathematical proofs, and who
extended the theory to the multidirectionalcase.

REFERENCES
[ 11 C. E. Shannon, A mathematicaltheory
of communication,
Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 21, pp. 379-423, 623-652, 1948.
[2] H. Marko, Informationstheorie und Kybernetik.Fortschr.d.Kybernetik, in Bericht uber die Tagung Kiel 1965 der Deutschen
Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Kybernetik.
Munich, Germany: Oldenbourg-Verlag, 1967, pp. 9-28.
[ 31 -,
Die Theorie der bidirektionalen Kommunikation und ihre
Anwendung auf die Informationsiibermittlung zwischen Menschen
(subjective information), Kybernetik, vol. 3, pp. 128-136, 1966.
Information theory and cybernetics, IEEESpectrum,
[4] -,
pp. 75-83,1967.
[5] H. Marko and E. Neuburger, A short reviewof thetheory of
bidirectionalcommunication, Nachrichtentech. Z., vol. 6,pp.
320-323, 1970.
[6] -, Uber gerichtete Groi3en in der Informationstheorie. Untersuchungen zur Theoriederbidirektionalen
Kommunikation,
Arch. Elek. Ubertragung, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 61-69, 1967.
[ 71 E. Neuburger, Zwei Fundamentalgesetzederbidirektionalen
Kommunikation, Arch. Elek. Ubertragung, no. 5, pp. 208-214,
1970.
Beschreibung der gegenseitigen Abhangigkeit von Signal[8] -,
folgen durchgerichteteInformationsgroDen,
Nachrichtentech.
Fachberichte, vol. 33, pp. 49-59, 1967.
[9] -, Kommunikation der Gruppe (Ein Beitrag zur Informationstheorie). Munich, Germany: Oldenbourg-Verlag, 1970.

1351

[ 101 G. Hauske and E. Neuburger, Gerichtet:,Informationsgrofien

zur Analyse gekoppelterVerhaltensweisen,
Kybernetik, vol. 4,
pp. 171-181, 1968.
[ 111 W. Mayer, Gruppenverhalten
von
Totenkopfaffen
unter
besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Kommunikationstheorie, Kybernetik, vol. 8, pp. 59-68, 1970.
of a noisy channel,
[12] C. E. Shannon,Thezero-errorcapacity
IRE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-2, pp. 8-19, Sept. 1956.
[13] J. P. M. Schalkwijk, Recent developments in feedback communication, Proc. IEEE, vol. 57, pp. 1242-1249, July 1969.
[ 141 C. E. Shannon,Two way communicationchannels, in Proc.
4thBerkeleySymp.Math.Stat.
and Prob., vol. 1. Berkeley:
Univ. California Press, pp. 6 11-644.
[ 151 W. J. McGill, Multivariate information transmission, Psychometrica, vol. 19, pp. 97-116, 1954.
[ 161 W. R. Ashby, Information flow withincoordinated systems,
Publ. 203, Int. Congr. Cybern., John Rose, Ed. London:1969,
pp. 57-64.
[ 171 S . Watanabe, Information theoretical analysis of multivariate
correlation, IBM J., pp. 66-82, 1960.