Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2012 | Review

Assimilation and contrast: the two sides of specific interference between action and perception

Auteurs: Jan Zwickel, Wolfgang Prinz

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2012

Abstract

Perception and action have long been treated as relatively independent and serial processes. More recent views, however, consider perception and action as relying on a common set of processes and/or representations. The present paper will focus on a variety of specific (content-based) perception–action interactions that have been taken as support for such views. In particular, the following aspects will be considered: direction of influence (perception on action vs. action on perception), temporal type (concurrent vs. non-concurrent), functional relation (related/unrelated), and type of movements (biological vs. non-biological). Different extant models of the perception-action interface are discussed and a classification schema proposed that tries to explain when contrast and when assimilation effects will arise.

vorige artikel Mind and movement

volgende artikel Ideomotor silence: the case of complete paralysis and brain–computer interfaces (BCI)

Attraction was found to far away distractors. This pattern was explained within a competitive model and is consistent with the current account, assuming that distance controls amount of overlap (see Zwickel et al. 2010a).

We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.

Beets, I. A. M., Rösler, F., & Fiehler, K. (2010). Nonvisual motor learning improves visual motion perception: Evidence from violating the two-thirds power law. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(3), 1612–1624.PubMedCrossRef

Beets, I. A. M., ’t Hart, B. M., Rösler, F., Henriques, D. Y. P., Einhäuser, W., & Fiehler, K. (2010). Online action-to-perception transfer: Only percept-dependent action affects perception. Vision Research, 50(24), 2633–2641.PubMedCrossRef

Bekkering, H., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2002). Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychological Science, 13(4), 370–374.PubMedCrossRef

Blaesi, S., & Wilson, M. (2010). The mirror reflects both ways: Action influences perception of others. Brain and Cognition, 72(2), 306–309.PubMedCrossRef

Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106(1–2), 3–22.PubMedCrossRef

Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Seitz, R. J., Zilles, K., Rizzolatti, G., & Freund, H. J. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An FMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13(2), 400–404.PubMed

Casile, A., & Giese, M. A. (2006). Nonvisual motor training influences biological motion perception. Current Biology, 16(1), 69–74.PubMedCrossRef

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910.PubMedCrossRef

Chua, R., & Weeks, D. J. (1997). Dynamical explorations of compatibility in perception-action coupling. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility, (pp. 373–398). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Craighero, L., Bello, A., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti G. (2002) Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia, 40(5), 492–502.PubMedCrossRef

Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Visuomotor priming. Visual Cognition, 5, 109–125.CrossRef

Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1999). Action for perception: A motor-visual attentional effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1673–1692.PubMedCrossRef

Decety, J., & Michel, F. (1989). Comparative analysis of actual and mental movement times in two graphic tasks. Brain and Cognition, 11(1), 87–97.PubMedCrossRef

Edwards, M. G., Humphreys, G. W., & Castiello, U. (2003). Motor facilitation following action observation: A behavioural study in prehensile action. Brain and Cognition, 53(3), 495–502.PubMedCrossRef

Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471.PubMedCrossRef

Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 71(1), 22–29.CrossRef

Fowler, C. A., Galantucci, B., & Saltzman, E. (2003). Motor theories of perception. In M. A. Arbib (Ed.), The handbook of brain theory & neural networks. New York: MIT.

Franz, V. H., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Bülthoff, H. H., & Fahle, M. (2000). Grasping visual illusions: No evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychological Science, 11(1), 20–25.PubMedCrossRef

Freeman, J. E., & Ellis, J. A. (2003). The representation of delayed intentions: A prospective subject-performed task?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29(5), 976–992.CrossRef

Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.PubMedCrossRef

Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493–501.PubMedCrossRef

Gazzola, V., Rizzolatti, G., Wicker, B., & Keysers, C. (2007). The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. Neuroimage, 35(4), 1674–1684.PubMedCrossRef

Gibson, J. J. (Ed.) (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Glover, S. (2002). Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(7), 288–292.PubMedCrossRef

Gomi, H., Abekawa, N., & Nishida, S. (2006). Spatiotemporal tuning of rapid interactions between visual-motion analysis and reaching movement. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(20), 5301–5308.PubMedCrossRef

Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20–25.PubMedCrossRef

Graf, M., Reitzner, B., Corves, C., Casile, A., Giese, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Predicting point-light actions in real-time. Neuroimage, 36(Suppl 2), T22–T32.PubMedCrossRef

Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(1), 52–57.PubMedCrossRef

Grosjean, M., Shiffrar, M., & Knoblich, G. (2007). Fitts’s law holds for action perception. Psychological Science, 18(2), 95–99.PubMedCrossRef

Grosjean, M., Zwickel, J., & Prinz, W. (2009). Acting while perceiving: Assimilation precedes contrast. Psychological Research, 73(1), 3–13.PubMedCrossRef

Hamilton, A., Wolpert, D., & Frith, U. (2004). Your own action influences how you perceive another person’s action. Current Biology, 14(6), 493–498.PubMedCrossRef

Hannus, A., Cornelissen, F. W., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2005). Selection-for-action in visual search. Acta Psychologica (Amst), 118(1–2), 171–191.CrossRef

Helbig, H. B., Steinwender, J., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2010). Action observation can prime visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 200(3–4), 251–258.CrossRef

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–937.CrossRef

Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility: An editor’s introduction. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 3–8). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Jacobs, A., & Shiffrar, M. (2005). Walking perception by walking observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 157–169.PubMedCrossRef

Kahneman, D., Beatty, J., & Pollack, I. (1967). Perceptual deficit during a mental task. Science, 157(3785), 218–219.PubMedCrossRef

Keller, P. E., Knoblich, G., & Repp, B. H. (2007). Pianists duet better when they play with themselves: On the possible role of action simulation in synchronization. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(1), 102–111.PubMedCrossRef

Kerzel, D. (2001). Visual short-term memory is influenced by haptic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(4), 1101–1109.CrossRef

Kilner, J. M., de C. Hamilton, A. F., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2007). Interference effect of observed human movement on action is due to velocity profile of biological motion. Social Neuroscience, 2(3–4), 158–166.PubMedCrossRef

Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S. J. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13(6), 522–525.PubMedCrossRef

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility. A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270.PubMedCrossRef

Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Brass, M. (2010). When do we simulate non-human agents? Dissociating communicative and non-communicative actions. Cognition, 115(3), 426–434.

Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2009). Object manipulation and motion perception: Evidence of an influence of action planning on visual processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(4), 1062–1071.PubMedCrossRef

Mahon, B. Z., Milleville, S. C., Negri, G. A. L., Rumiati, R. I., Caramazza, A., & Martin, A. (2007). Action-related properties shape object representations in the ventral stream. Neuron, 55(3), 507–520.

Mantas, A., Evdokimidis, I., & Smyrnis, N. (2008). Perception action interaction: The oblique effect in the evolving trajectory of arm pointing movements. Experimental Brain Research, 184(4), 605–616.CrossRef

Miall, R. C., Stanley, J., Todhunter, S., Levick, C., Lindo, S., & Miall, J. D. (2006). Performing hand actions assists the visual discrimination of similar hand postures. Neuropsychologia, 44(6), 966–976.PubMedCrossRef

Müsseler, J. (1999). How independent from action control is perception? An event-coding account for more equally-ranked crosstalks. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events. Advances in psychology (Vol. 129, Chap. 6, pp. 121–147). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 861–872.PubMedCrossRef

Parsons, L. M. (1987). Imagined spatial transformations of one’s hands and feet. Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 178–241.PubMedCrossRef

Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129–154.CrossRef

Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioural and Brain Science, 22(3), 341–365; discussion 366–423.

Repp, B. H. (2006). Does an auditory distractor sequence affect self-paced tapping? Acta Psychologica, 121(1), 81–107.PubMedCrossRef

Repp, B. H., & Knoblich, G. (2007). Action can affect auditory perception. Psychological Science, 18(1), 6–7.PubMedCrossRef

Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., Isenhower, R. W., Goodman, J. R. L., & Schmidt, R. C. (2007). Rocking together: Dynamics of intentional and unintentional interpersonal coordination. Human Movement Science, 26(6), 867–891.PubMedCrossRef

Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Edwards, S., Baker, T., & Willson, K. (2003). Seeing the action: Neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nature Neuroscience, 6(1), 82–89.PubMedCrossRef

Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (1998). Spatial attention: Mechanisms and theories. In M. Sabourin, F. Craik, & M. Robert (Eds.), Advances in psychological science 2: Biological and cognitive aspects (pp. 171–198). Hove: Psychology.

Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.PubMedCrossRef

Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 661–670.PubMedCrossRef

Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The smarc effect. Cognition, 99(2), 113–129.PubMedCrossRef

Sanders, A. F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica, 53(1), 61–97.PubMedCrossRef

Schneider, W., & Deubel, H. (2002). Selection-for-perception and selection-for-spatial-motor-action are coupled by visual attention: A review of recent findings and new evidence from stimulus-driven saccade control. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action, number 19 in Attention and performance (pp. 609–627). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schubö, A., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Interactions between perception and action in a reaction task with overlapping S-R assignments. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 65(3), 145–157.CrossRef

Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Perceptual resonance: Action-induced modulation of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 349–355.PubMedCrossRef

Shiffrar, M., & Freyd, J. J. (1990). Apparent motion of the human body. Psychological Science, 1(4), 257–264.CrossRef

Simon, J. R. (1968). Effect of ear stimulated on reaction time and movement time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(2), 344–346.PubMedCrossRef

Stanley, J., Gowen, E., & Miall, R. C. (2007). Effects of agency on movement interference during observation of a moving dot stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(4), 915–926.PubMedCrossRef

Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Blinded by headlights. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 65–74.PubMedCrossRef

Tipper, S. P., Howard, L. A., & Jackson, S. R. (1997). Selective reaching to grasp: Evidence for distractor interference effects. Visual Cognition, 4(1), 1–38.CrossRef

Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830–846.PubMedCrossRef

Viviani, P. (2002). Motor competence in the perception of dynamic events: A tutorial. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (Chap. 21, pp. 406–442). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88(3), 354–360.PubMedCrossRef

Ward, R. (2002). Independence and integration of perception and action: An introduction. Visual Cognition, 9, 385–391.CrossRef

Whitney, D., Westwood, D., & Goodale, M. (2003). The influence of visual motion on fast reaching movements to a stationary object. Nature, 423, 869–873.PubMedCrossRef

Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In Attention and performance VIII. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, N.J.

Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). Orlando: Academic Press.

Wilson, M., & Fox, G. (2007). Working memory for language is not special. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 470–473.CrossRef

Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131(3), 460–473.PubMedCrossRef

Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1479–1492.PubMedCrossRef

Wohlschläger, A. (2000). Visual motion priming by invisible actions. Vision Research, 40(8), 925–930.PubMedCrossRef

Wohlschläger, A., & Wohlschläger, A. (1998). Mental and manual rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2), 397–412.PubMedCrossRef

Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K., & Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 593–602.PubMedCrossRef

Wood, J. N. (2007). Visual working memory for observed actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 639–652.CrossRef

Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Seeing while moving: Measuring the online influence of action on perception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1063–1071.CrossRef

Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2008). A contrast effect between the concurrent production and perception of movement directions. Visual Cognition, 26, 953–978.CrossRef

Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2010a). On interference effects in concurrent perception and action. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 74, 152–171.CrossRef

Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2010b). What part of an action interferes with ongoing perception? Acta Psychologica, 134(3), 403–409.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Assimilation and contrast: the two sides of specific interference between action and perception
Auteurs: Jan Zwickel
Wolfgang Prinz
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0338-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2012

The convergent evolution of neural substrates for cognition

The mental number line electrified: brain potentials in a numerical flanker task

Some unsettled problems in behavioral neuroscience research

“I” and the brain

Ideomotor silence: the case of complete paralysis and brain–computer interfaces (BCI)

System consolidation of memory during sleep