Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-04-2019 | Original Article

Does watching Han Solo or C-3PO similarly influence our language processing?

Auteurs: Sophie-Anne Beauprez, Christel Bidet-Ildei, Kazuo Hiraki

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2020

Abstract

Several studies have demonstrated that perceiving an action influences the subsequent processing of action verbs. However, which characteristics of the perceived action are truly determinant to enable this influence is still unknown. The current study investigated the role of the agent executing an action in this action–language relationship. Participants performed a semantic decision task after seeing a video of a human or a robot performing an action. The results of the first study showed that perceiving a human being executing an action as well as perceiving a robot facilitate subsequent language processing, suggesting that the humanness (The term “humanness” is used as meaning “belonging to human race” and not to refer to a personal quality) of the agent is not crucial in the link between action and language. However, this experiment was conducted with Japanese people who are very familiar with robots; thus, an alternative explanation could be that it is the unfamiliarity with the agent that could perturb the action–language relationship. To assess this hypothesis, we carried out two additional experiments with French participants. The results of the second study showed that, unlike the observation of a human agent, the observation of a robot did not influence language processing. Finally, the results of the third study showed that, after a familiarization phase, French participants too were influenced by the observation of a robot. Overall, the outcomes of these studies indicate that, more than the humanness of the agent, it is the familiarity which we have with this agent that is crucial in the action–language relationship.

vorige artikel Musical dynamics in early triadic interactions: a case study

volgende artikel Effects of neurofeedback and working memory-combined training on executive functions in healthy young adults

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Mu is a range of electroencephalography oscillations (8–13 Hz). Its suppression is considered to reflect mirror neuron system activity.

2012 report on “Public attitudes towards robots” http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_382_en.pdf.

Amoruso, L., & Urgesi, C. (2016). Familiarity modulates motor activation while other species’ actions are observed: A magnetic stimulation study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 43(6), 765–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13154.CrossRefPubMed

Anelli, F., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2014). Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(4), 1627–1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.09.001.CrossRef

Aravena, P., et al. (2012). Grip force reveals the context sensitivity of language-induced motor activity during “action words” processing: Evidence from sentential negation. PLoS One, 7(12), e50287. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050287.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Arita, A., Hiraki, K., Kanda, T., & Ishiguro, H. (2005). Can we talk to robots? Ten-month-old infants expected interactive humanoid robots to be talked to by persons. Cognition, 95(3), B49B57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.001.CrossRef

Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), 3539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.012.CrossRef

Aziz-Zadeh, L., Wilson, S. M., Rizzolatti, G., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology, 16(18), 18181823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.060.CrossRef

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(04), 577–609. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149.CrossRefPubMed

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRef

Beauprez, S.-A., & Bidet-Ildei, C. (2017). Perceiving a biological human movement facilitates action verb processing. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9694-5.CrossRef

Beauprez, S.-A., & Bidet-Ildei, C. (2018). The kinematics but not the orientation of an action influences language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(11), 1712–1726. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000568.CrossRefPubMed

Beauprez, S.-A., Toussaint, L., & Bidet-Ildei, C. (2018). When context modulates the influence of action observation on language processing. PLoS One, 13(8), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201966.CrossRef

Bidet-Ildei, C., Méary, D., & Orliaguet, J.-P. (2006). Visual perception of elliptic movements in 7- to-11-year-old children: Influence of motor rules. Current Psychology Letters. Behaviour, Brain & Cognition, 19(2), 1–10.

Bidet-Ildei, C., Meugnot, A., Beauprez, S.-A., Gimenes, M., & Toussaint, L. (2017). Short-term upper limb immobilization affects action-word understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1129–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000373.CrossRefPubMed

Bidet-Ildei, C., Sparrow, L., & Coello, Y. (2011). Reading action word affects the visual perception of biological motion. Acta Psychologica, 137(3), 330334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.04.001.CrossRef

Bisio, A., Sciutti, A., Nori, F., Metta, G., Fadiga, L., et al. (2014). Motor contagion during human–human and human–robot interaction. PLoS One, 9(8), e106172. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Boulenger, V., et al.(2006). Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 16071615. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1607.CrossRef

Calvo-Merino, B., Glaser, D. E., Grèzes, J., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2005). Action observation and acquired motor skills: An FMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15(8), 12431249. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhi007.CrossRef

Chaminade, T., & Cheng, G. (2009). Social cognitive neuroscience and humanoid robotics. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 103(3–5), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2009.08.011.CrossRef

Chaminade, T., Hodgins, J., & Kawato, M. (2007). Anthropomorphism influences perception of computer-animated characters’ actions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(3), 206. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cross, E. S., Kraemer, D. J. M., de Hamilton, A. F. C., Kelley, W. M., & Grafton, S. T. (2009). Sensitivity of the action observation network to physical and observational learning. Cerebral Cortex, 19(2), 315326. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn083.CrossRef

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175191.CrossRef

Gazzola, V., Rizzolatti, G., Wicker, B., & Keysers, C. (2007a). The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. NeuroImage, 35(4), 16741684.CrossRef

Gazzola, V., et al. (2007b). Aplasics born without hands mirror the goal of hand actions with their feet. Current Biology, 17(14), 12351240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.045.CrossRef

Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558–565. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196313.CrossRef

Gutsell, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 841845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.011.CrossRef

Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9.CrossRef

Hofer, T., Hauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2005). Infant’s perception of goal-directed actions performed by a mechanical device. Infant Behavior and Development, 28(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.012.CrossRef

Iacoboni, M., et al. (2005). Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system. PLoS Biology, 3(3), e79. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kandel, S., Orliaguet, J. P., & Viviani, P. (2000). Perceptual anticipation in handwriting: The role of implicit motor competence. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(4), 706716. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206917.CrossRef

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

Klepp, A., et al. (2014). Neuromagnetic hand and foot motor sources recruited during action verb processing. Brain and Language, 128(1), 4152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.12.001.CrossRef

Kuipers, J.-R., van Koningsbruggen, M., & Thierry, G. (2013). Semantic priming in the motor cortex: Evidence from combined repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and event-related potential. Neuroreport, 24(12), 646651. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e3283631467.CrossRef

Kupferberg, A., Huber, M., Helfer, B., Lenz, C., Knoll, A., Glasauer, S., et al. (2012). Moving just like you: motor interference depends on similar motility of agent and observer. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e39637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039637.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liepelt, R., Dolk, T., & Prinz, W. (2012). Bidirectional semantic interference between action and speech. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(4), 446455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0390-z.CrossRef

Liew, S.-L., Han, S., & Aziz-Zadeh, L. (2011). Familiarity modulates mirror neuron and mentalizing regions during intention understanding. Human Brain Mapping, 32(11), 198697. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21164.CrossRef

Lindemann, O., Stenneken, P., van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2006). Semantic activation in action planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 633643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.633.CrossRef

Lyons, I. M., et al. (2010). The role of personal experience in the neural processing of action-related language. Brain and Language, 112(3), 214222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.05.006.CrossRef

MacDorman, K. F., Vasudevan, S. K., & Ho, C.-C. (2009). Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI & Society, 23(4), 485510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-008-0181-2.CrossRef

Martel, L., Bidet-Ildei, C., & Coello, Y. (2011). Anticipating the terminal position of an observed action: Effect of kinematic, structural, and identity information. Visual Cognition, 19(6), 785798. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2011.587847.CrossRef

Matsuda, G., Hiraki, K., & Ishiguro, H. (2015). EEG-based Mu rhythm suppression to measure the effects of appearance and motion on perceived human likeness of a robot. Journal of Human–Robot Interaction, 5(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.5898/10.5898/JHRI.5.1.Matsuda.CrossRef

Mollo, G., Pulvermüller, F., & Hauk, O. (2016). Movement priming of EEG/MEG brain responses for action-words characterizes the link between language and action. Cortex, 74, 262276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.10.021.CrossRef

Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Suzuki, T. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI & Society, 20(2), 138150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0012-7.CrossRef

Nomura, T. T., Syrdal, D. S., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015). Differences on social acceptance of humanoid robots between Japan and the UK. In Proceedings of 4th international symposium on new frontiers in human–robot interaction. The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AISB), Canterbury, United Kingdom (pp. 115–120).

Oberman, L., McCleery, J., Ramachandran, V., & Pineda, J. (2007). EEG evidence for mirror neuron activity during the observation of human and robot actions: Toward an analysis of the human qualities of interactive robots. Neurocomputing, 70(1315), 21942203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2006.02.024.CrossRef

Pavlova, M. A., Krägeloh-Mann, I., Birbaumer, N., & Sokolov, A. (2002). Biological motion shown backwards: The apparent-facing effect. Perception, 31(4), 435443. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3262.CrossRef

Press, C., Bird, G., Flach, R., & Heyes, C. (2005). Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(3), 632640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.08.020.CrossRef

Press, C., Gillmeister, H., & Heyes, C. (2006). Bottom-up, not top-down, modulation of imitation by human and robotic models. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24(8), 2415–2419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05115.x.CrossRefPubMed

Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 6(7), 576582. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1706.CrossRef

Ranzini, M., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2011). With hands I do not centre! Action- and object-related effects of hand-cueing in the line bisection. Neuropsychologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.06.019.CrossRefPubMed

Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230.CrossRef

Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 2(9), 661670. https://doi.org/10.1038/35090060.CrossRef

Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado Bou, M. A., del Pobil, A. P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: Corepresentation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1073–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029493.CrossRefPubMed

Tai, Y., Scherfler, C., Brooks, D., Sawamoto, N., & Castiello, U. (2004). The human premotor cortex is “Mirror” only for biological actions. Current Biology, 14(2), 117120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.005.CrossRef

Wykowska, A., Wiese, E., Prosser, A., & Müller, H. J. (2014). Beliefs about the minds of others influence how we process sensory information. PLoS One, 9(4), e94339. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094339.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.1.1.CrossRef

Titel: Does watching Han Solo or C-3PO similarly influence our language processing?
Auteurs: Sophie-Anne Beauprez
Christel Bidet-Ildei
Kazuo Hiraki
Publicatiedatum: 01-04-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01169-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2020

The effects of early schema acquisition on mathematical problem solving

Musical dynamics in early triadic interactions: a case study

Cognitive control processes associated with successful gait performance in dual-task walking in healthy young adults

Are model parameters linked to processing stages? An empirical investigation for the ex-Gaussian, ex-Wald, and EZ diffusion models

Reaching trajectories unravel modality-dependent temporal dynamics of the automatic process in the Simon task: a model-based approach

The primacy order effect in complex decision making