Top

Gepubliceerd in:

24-10-2017 | Original Article

How preschoolers and adults represent their joint action partner’s behavior

Auteurs: Lucia Maria Sacheli, M. Meyer, E. Hartstra, H. Bekkering, S. Hunnius

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2019

Abstract

We investigated the cognitive mechanisms underlying turn-taking joint action in 42-month-old children (Experiment 1) and adults (Experiment 2) using a behavioral task of dressing a virtual bear together. We aimed to investigate how participants represent a partners’ behavior, i.e., in terms of specific action kinematics or of action effects. The bear was dressed by pressing a smaller and a bigger button. In the Action-response task, instructions asked participants to respond to the partner by pressing the same or opposite button; in the Action-effect task they had to respond to the partner’s action effect by dressing the bear with the lacking part of the clothing, which in some cases implied pressing the same button and in other cases implied pressing the opposite button. In 50% of the trials, the partner’s association between each button and the ensuing effect (dressing the bear with t-shirt or pants) was reversed, while it never changed for participants. Both children and adults showed no effect of physical congruency of actions, but showed impaired performance in the Action-effect task if their partner achieved her effect through a different action-effect association than their own. These results suggest that, when encoding their partner’s actions, agents are influenced by action-effect associations that they learnt through their own experience. While interference led to overt errors in children, it caused longer reaction times in adults, suggesting that a flexible cognitive control (that is still in development in young children) is required to take on the partner’s perspective.

vorige artikel No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task

volgende artikel Binding abstract concepts

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Bekkering, H., De Bruijn, E. R., Cuijpers, R. H., Newman-Norlund, R., Van Schie, H. T., & Meulenbroek, R. (2009). Joint action: Neurocognitive mechanisms supporting human interaction. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 340–352.CrossRefPubMed

Blakemore, S. J., & Frith, C. (2005). The role of motor contagion in the prediction of action. Neuropsychologia, 43(2), 260–267.CrossRefPubMed

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

Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44(2), 124–143.CrossRefPubMed

Brownell, C. A. (2011). Early developments in joint action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 193–211.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brownell, C. A., Ramani, G. B., & Zerwas, S. (2006). Becoming a social partner with peers: Cooperation and social understanding in one-and two-year-olds. Child Development, 77(4), 803–821.PubMedPubMedCentral

Bruyer, R., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: Is the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)? Psychologica Belgica, 51(1), 5–13.CrossRef

Butterfill, S. (2012). Joint action and development. The Philosophical Quarterly, 62(246), 1467–9213.CrossRef

Candidi, M., Curioni, A., Donnarumma, F., Sacheli, L. M., & Pezzulo, G. (2015a). Interactional leader–follower sensorimotor communication strategies during repetitive joint actions. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 12(110), 20150644.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Candidi, M., Sacheli, L. M., Aglioti, S. M., et al. (2015b). From muscles synergies and individual goals to interpersonal synergies and shared goals: mirror neurons and interpersonal action hierarchies: Comment on “Grasping synergies: A motor-control approach to the mirror neuron mechanism” by D’Ausilio et al. Physics Life Reviews, 12, 126–128.CrossRef

Carpendale, J. I., & Lewis, C. (2004). Constructing an understanding of mind: The development of children’s social understanding within social interaction. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 27(01), 79–96.PubMed

Chersi, F. (2011). Neural mechanisms and models underlying joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 643–653.CrossRefPubMed

Cross, K. A., & Iacoboni, M. (2014a). Neural systems for preparatory control of imitation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1644), 20130176.CrossRef

Cross, K. A., & Iacoboni, M. (2014b). To imitate or not: Avoiding imitation involves preparatory inhibition of motor resonance. Neuroimage, 91, 228–236.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cross, K. A., Torrisi, S., Reynolds Losin, E. A., & Iacoboni, M. (2013). Controlling automatic imitative tendencies: Interactions between mirror neuron and cognitive control systems. Neuroimage, 83, 493–504.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

D’Ausilio, A., Bartoli, E., & Maffongelli, L. (2015). Grasping synergies: a motor-control approach to the mirror neuron mechanism. Physics Life Reviews, 12, 91–103.CrossRef

Diamond, A., & Kirkham, N. (2005). Not quite as grown-up as we like to think parallels between cognition in childhood and adulthood. Psychological Science, 16(4), 291–297.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Elsner, B. (2007). Infants’ imitation of goal-directed actions: the role of movements and action effects. Acta Psychologica, 124(1), 44–59.CrossRefPubMed

Elsner, B., & Aschersleben, G. (2003). Do I get what you get? Learning about the effects of self-performed and observed actions in infancy. Consciousness and Cognition, 12(4), 732–751.CrossRefPubMed

Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K., & Keysar, B. (2004). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 760–768.CrossRef

Fishbein, H. D., Lewis, S., & Keiffer, K. (1972). Children’s understanding of spatial relations: Coordination of perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 7(1), 21.CrossRef

Flavell, J. H., Speer, J. R., Green, F. L., August, D. L., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1981). The development of comprehension monitoring and knowledge about communication. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(5), 1–6.CrossRef

Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: a review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 31–60.CrossRefPubMed

Gerson, S. A., Bekkering, H., & Hunnius, S. (2015). Short-term motor training, but not observational training, alters neurocognitive mechanisms of action processing in infancy. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(6), 1207–1214.CrossRefPubMed

Hadley, L. V., Novembre, G., Keller, P. E., & Pickering, M. J. (2015) Causal role of motor simulation in turn-taking behavior. Jounal of Neurosciences, 35(50), 16516–16520.

Higgins, J. J., Blair, R. C., & Tashtoush, S. (1990). The aligned rank transform procedure. In Proceedings of the Conference on Applied Statistics in Agriculture. Kansas State, pp. 185–195.

Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500.CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research PRPF, 73(4), 512–526.CrossRef

Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2010). The early development of object knowledge: A study of infants’ visual anticipations during action observation. Developmental Psychology, 46(2), 446.CrossRefPubMed

Ikeda, Y., Okuzumi, H., & Kokubun, M. (2014). Age-related trends of inhibitory control in Stroop-like big-small task in 3 to 12-year-old children and young adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 227.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage, 14, 103–109.CrossRef

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, 102–111.CrossRefPubMed

Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2014). Hebbian learning and predictive mirror neurons for actions, sensations and emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1644), 20130175.CrossRef

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

Knoblich, G., & Jordan, J. S. (2003). Action coordination in groups and individuals: Learning anticipatory control. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(5), 1006–1016.CrossRefPubMed

Kohler, E., Keysers, C., Umiltà, M. A., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hearing sounds, understanding actions: action representation in mirror neurons. Science, 297(5582), 846–848.CrossRefPubMed

Liben, L. S. (1978). Performance on Piagetian spatial tasks as a function of sex, field dependence, and training. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behaviour and Development, 24(2), 97–110.

Meyer, M., Bekkering, H., Haartsen, R., Stapel, J. C., & Hunnius, S. (2015). The role of action prediction and inhibitory control in young children’s joint action coordination. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139, 203–220.CrossRefPubMed

Meyer, M., Bekkering, H., Paulus, M., & Hunnius, S. (2010). Joint action coordination in 2½- and 3-year-old children. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 220.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Meyer, M., van der Wel, R. P., & Hunnius, S. (2013). Higher-order action planning for individual and joint object manipulations. Experimental Brain Research, 225(4), 579–588.CrossRefPubMed

Meyer, M., van der Wel, R. P., & Hunnius, S. (2016). Planning my actions to accommodate yours: joint action development during early childhood. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1693), 20150371. doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0371.CrossRef

Mueller, E., & Brenner, J. (1977). The origins of social skills and interaction among playgroup toddlers. Child Development, 48(3), 854–861.CrossRef

Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1986). The infant’s role in mother–infant communications. Journal of child language, 13(01), 15–29.CrossRefPubMed

Newman-Norlund, R. D., van Schie, H. T., van Zuijlen, A. M., & Bekkering, H. (2007). The mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared with imitative action. Nature Neuroscience, 10(7), 817–818.CrossRefPubMed

Novembre, G., Ticini, L. F., Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Keller, P. E. (2014). Motor simulation and the coordination of self and other in real-time joint action. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(8), 1062–1068.CrossRefPubMed

Ocampo, B., & Kritikos, A. (2010). Placing actions in context: Motor facilitation following observation of identical and non-identical manual acts. Experimental Brain Research, 201(4), 743–751.CrossRefPubMed

Ondobaka, S., de Lange, F. P., Newman-Norlund, R. D., Wiemers, M., & Bekkering, H. (2012). Interplay between action and movement intentions during social interaction. Psychological Science, 23(1), 30–35.CrossRefPubMed

Paulus, M. (2016). The development of action planning in a joint action context. Developmental Psychology, 52(7), 1052–1063.CrossRefPubMed

Perner, J., & Davies, G. (1991). Understanding the mind as an active information processor: Do young children have a “copy theory of mind”? Cognition, 39(1), 51–69.CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R., Dolk, T., Prinz, W., & Kunde, W. (2014). Joint response-effect compatibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 817.CrossRef

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child conception of space. (trans: Langdon F.J., & Lunzer J. L.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

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

Rizzolatti, G., & Fogassi, L. (2014). The mirror mechanism: Recent findings and perspectives. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 369(1644), 20130420.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sacheli, L. M., Aglioti, S. M., & Candidi, M. (2015b). Social cues to joint actions: The role of shared goals. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1034. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01034.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sacheli, L. M., Candidi, M., Era, V., & Aglioti, S. M. (2015a). Causative role of left aIPS in coding shared goals during human-avatar complementary joint actions. Nature Communications, 6, 7544. doi:10.1038/ncomms8544.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sacheli, L. M., Tidoni, E., Pavone, E. F., Aglioti, S. M., & Candidi, M. (2013). Kinematics fingerprints of leader and follower role-taking during cooperative joint actions. Experimental Brain Research, 226(4), 473–486.CrossRefPubMed

Salter, K. C., & Fawcett, R. F. (1993). The ART test of interaction: A robust and powerful rank test of interaction in factorial models. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 22(1), 137–153.CrossRef

Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76.CrossRefPubMed

Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 353–367.CrossRefPubMed

Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88(3), B11–B21.CrossRefPubMed

Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6), 1234–1246.PubMed

Spengler, S., von Cramon, D. Y., & Brass, M. (2010). Resisting motor mimicry: Control of imitation involves processes central to social cognition in patients with frontal and temporo-parietal lesions. Social Neuroscience, 5(4), 401–416.CrossRefPubMed

Tunik, E., Rice, N. J., Hamilton, A., & Grafton, S. T. (2007). Beyond grasping: representation of action in human anterior intraparietal sulcus. Neuroimage, 36, T77–T86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ubaldi, S., Barchiesi, G., & Cattaneo, L. (2015). Bottom-up and top-down visuomotor responses to action observation. Cerebral Cortex, 25(4), 1032–1041.CrossRefPubMed

van Schie, H. T., van Waterschoot, B. M., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Understanding action beyond imitation: Reversed compatibility effects of action observation in imitation and joint action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1493–1500.PubMed

Vesper, C., van der Wel, R. P., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2013). Are you ready to jump? Predictive mechanisms in interpersonal coordination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 48–61.PubMed

Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128.CrossRefPubMed

Wobbrock, J. O., Findlater, L., Gergle, D., & Higgins, J. J. (2011). The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only ANOVA procedures. In Proc. CHI ’11 (pp. 143–146). New York: ACM Press.

Yamaguchi, M., Wall, H. J., & Hommel, B. (2017). Action-effect sharing induces task-set sharing in joint task switching. Cognition, 165, 113–120.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: How preschoolers and adults represent their joint action partner’s behavior
Auteurs: Lucia Maria Sacheli
M. Meyer
E. Hartstra
H. Bekkering
S. Hunnius
Publicatiedatum: 24-10-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0929-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2019

Putting emotions in routes: the influence of emotionally laden landmarks on spatial memory

Spatial–numerical associations in first-graders: evidence from a manual-pointing task

Music-space associations are grounded, embodied and situated: examination of cello experts and non-musicians in a standard tone discrimination task

Contrasting effects of adaptation to a visuomotor rotation on explicit and implicit measures of sensory coupling

Anticipating cognitive effort: roles of perceived error-likelihood and time demands

No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task