Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-07-2012 | Original Article

The role of appearance and motion in action prediction

Auteurs: Ayse Pinar Saygin, Waltraud Stadler

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2012

Abstract

We used a novel stimulus set of human and robot actions to explore the role of humanlike appearance and motion in action prediction. Participants viewed videos of familiar actions performed by three agents: human, android and robot, the former two sharing human appearance, the latter two nonhuman motion. In each trial, the video was occluded for 400 ms. Participants were asked to determine whether the action continued coherently (in-time) after occlusion. The timing at which the action continued was early, late, or in-time (100, 700 or 400 ms after the start of occlusion). Task performance interacted with the observed agent. For early continuations, accuracy was highest for human, lowest for robot actions. For late continuations, the pattern was reversed. Both android and human conditions differed significantly from the robot condition. Given the robot and android conditions had the same kinematics, the visual form of the actor appears to affect action prediction. We suggest that the selection of the internal sensorimotor model used for action prediction is influenced by the observed agent’s appearance.

vorige artikel Simulating and predicting others’ actions

volgende artikel Movement kinematics affect action prediction: comparing human to non-human point-light actions

Bar, M. (2009). Predictions: a universal principle in the operation of the human brain. Introduction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 364(1521), 1181–1182.PubMedCrossRef

Bubic, A., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schubotz, R. I. (2010). Prediction, cognition and the brain. Front Hum Neurosci, 4, 25.PubMed

Calvo-Merino, B., Grezes, J., Glaser, D. E., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2006). Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Curr Biol, 16(19), 1905–1910.PubMedCrossRef

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

Catmur, C., Walsh, V., & Heyes, C. (2007). Sensorimotor learning configures the human mirror system. Curr Biol, 17(17), 1527–1531.PubMedCrossRef

Chaminade, T., & Cheng, G. (2009). Social cognitive neuroscience and humanoid robotics. J Physiol Paris, 103(3–5), 286–295.PubMedCrossRef

Chaminade, T., Hodgins, J., & Kawato, M. (2007). Anthropomorphism influences perception of computer-animated characters’ actions. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci, 2(3), 206–216.PubMedCrossRef

Christensen, A., Ilg, W., & Giese, M. A. (2011). Spatiotemporal tuning of the facilitation of biological motion perception by concurrent motor execution. J Neurosci, 31(9), 3493–3499.PubMedCrossRef

Coradeschi, S., Ishiguro, H., Asada, M., Shapiro, S. C., Thielscher, M., Breazeal, C., et al. (2006). Human-inspired robots. IEEE Intell Syst, 21(4), 74–85.CrossRef

Cross, E. S., Hamilton, A. F., & Grafton, S. T. (2006). Building a motor simulation de novo: observation of dance by dancers. Neuroimage, 31(3), 1257–1267.PubMedCrossRef

Flanagan, J. R., & Johansson, R. S. (2003). Action plans used in action observation. Nature, 424(6950), 769–771.PubMedCrossRef

Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Phil Trans B, 360(1456), 815–836.CrossRef

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

Ho, C–. C., & MacDorman, K. F. (2010). Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Comput Hum Behav, 26(6), 1508–1518.CrossRef

Ishiguro, H. (2006). Android science: conscious and subconscious recognition. Connection Sci, 18(4), 319–332.CrossRef

Kawato, M., & Wolpert, D. (1998). Internal models for motor control. Novartis Found Symp, 218, 291–304. Discussion 304–297.PubMed

Kilner, J. M., Friston, K. J., & Frith, C. D. (2007a). Predictive coding: an account of the mirror neuron system. Cogn Process, 8(3), 159–166.PubMedCrossRef

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

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

Kilner, J. M., Vargas, C., Duval, S., Blakemore, S. J., & Sirigu, A. (2004). Motor activation prior to observation of a predicted movement. Nat Neurosci, 7(12), 1299–1301.PubMedCrossRef

Minato, T. & Ishiguro, H. (2008) Construction and evaluation of a model of natural human motion based on motion diversity. Proc of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 65–71.

Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.

Pelphrey, K. A., Mitchell, T. V., McKeown, M. J., Goldstein, J., Allison, T., & McCarthy, G. (2003). Brain activity evoked by the perception of human walking: controlling for meaningful coherent motion. J Neurosci, 23(17), 6819–6825.PubMed

Pollick, F. E. (2009). In search of the Uncanny Valley. In P. Daras & O. M. Ibarra (Eds.), UC Media 2009 (pp. 69–78). Venice, Italy: Springer.

Pollick, F. E., Hale, J. G., & Tzoneva-Hadjigeorgieva, M. (2005). Perception of humanoid movement. Int J Humanoid Robot, 3, 277–300.CrossRef

Press, C., Gillmeister, H., & Heyes, C. (2007). Sensorimotor experience enhances automatic imitation of robotic action. Proc Biol Sci, 274(1625), 2509–2514.PubMedCrossRef

Prinz, W. (2006). What re-enactment earns us. Cortex, 42(4), 515–517.PubMedCrossRef

Rao, R. P., & Ballard, D. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nat Neurosci, 2(1), 79–87.PubMedCrossRef

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

Saunier, G., Papaxanthis, C., Vargas, C. D., & Pozzo, T. (2008). Inference of complex human motion requires internal models of action: behavioral evidence. Exp Brain Res, 185(3), 399–409.PubMedCrossRef

Saygin, A. P. (2007). Superior temporal and premotor brain areas necessary for biological motion perception. Brain, 130(Pt 9), 2452–2461.PubMedCrossRef

Saygin, A. P., Chaminade, T., & Ishiguro, H. (2010). The perception of humans and robots: Uncanny hills in parietal cortex. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2716–2720). Portland, OR: Cognitive Science Society.

Saygin, A. P., Chaminade, T., Ishiguro, H., Driver, J., & Frith, C. F. (2011a). The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

Saygin, A. P., Chaminade, T., Urgen, B. A., & Ishiguro, H. (2011b). Cognitive neuroscience and robotics: a mutually beneficial joining of forces. In L. Takayama (Ed.), Robotics: systems and science. CA: Los Angeles.

Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Prediction of external events with our motor system: towards a new framework. Trends Cogn Sci, 11(5), 211–218.PubMedCrossRef

Schutz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Perceptual resonance: action-induced modulation of perception. Trends Cogn Sci, 11(8), 349–355.PubMedCrossRef

Shimada, M., Minato, T., Itakura, S. & Ishiguro, H. (2006). Evaluation of android using unconscious recognition, Proc of the IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 157–162.

Sparenberg, P., Springer, A., & Prinz, W. (2011). Predicting others’ actions: evidence for a constant time delay in action simulation. Psychol Res.

Springer, A., Brandstadter, S., Liepelt, R., Birngruber, T., Giese, M., Mechsner, F., et al. (2011). Motor execution affects action prediction. Brain Cogn, 76(1), 26–36.PubMedCrossRef

Stadler, W., Schubotz, R. I., von Cramon, D. Y., Springer, A., Graf, M., & Prinz, W. (2011). Predicting and memorizing observed action: differential premotor cortex involvement. Hum Brain Mapp, 32(5), 677–687.PubMedCrossRef

Umilta, M. A., Kohler, E., Gallese, V., Fogassi, L., Fadiga, L., Keysers, C., et al. (2001). I know what you are doing. A neurophysiological study. Neuron, 31(1), 155–165.PubMedCrossRef

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

Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K., & Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci, 358(1431), 593–602.CrossRef

Titel: The role of appearance and motion in action prediction
Auteurs: Ayse Pinar Saygin
Waltraud Stadler
Publicatiedatum: 01-07-2012
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0426-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2012

Bidirectional semantic interference between action and speech

Expecting to lift a box together makes the load look lighter

Observing how others lift light or heavy objects: time-dependent encoding of grip force in the primary motor cortex

Online prediction of others’ actions: the contribution of the target object, action context and movement kinematics

Neural theory for the perception of causal actions

Representing others’ actions: the role of expertise in the aging mind