Top

Gepubliceerd in:

09-05-2015 | Original Article

Does the anticipation of compatible partner reactions facilitate action planning in joint tasks?

Auteur: Romy Müller

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2016

Abstract

Observing another human’s actions influences action planning, but what about merely anticipating them? In joint action settings where a partner’s subsequent actions are a consequence of one’s own actions, such contingent partner reactions can be regarded as action effects. Therefore, just like automatic effects they might facilitate those of a person’s actions that overlap with them in relevant features. In Experiments 1 and 2, the spatial compatibility of contingent partner reactions was manipulated and compared with the influence of automatic effects. Experiment 1 used a simplistic scenario in which lateral keypress actions by the subject were responded to by mouse movements of a partner producing spatially compatible or incompatible visual effects. Experiment 2 transferred the paradigm to a more complex task in which subjects manually relocated virtual objects on a multi-touch display, and these or other objects were subsequently manipulated by the partner. In Experiment 1, compatible partner reactions speeded up subjects’ preceding actions, whereas in Experiment 2 the influence was not statistically reliable. To test whether influences of partner reaction compatibility could be found in such naturalistic settings at all, Experiment 3 also used a multi-touch setting but varied temporal instead of spatial compatibility, which has several methodological advantages. This time, a compatibility effect emerged in subjects’ movement initiation times, whereas contrast effects were found for movement durations. These findings indicate that the principles of ideomotor action control can be extended to joint action settings. At the same time, they also emphasize the importance of task features in determining whether our own behaviour is influenced by anticipations of another person’s reactions.

vorige artikel Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect

volgende artikel Top-down social modulation of interpersonal observation–execution

The relative spatial positioning of the participants differed between the experiments (next to each other vs. opposite sides). This resulted from the different affordances posed by the technologies (standard computer monitor vs. multi-touch table) and thus was mainly due to practical considerations. However, note that whereas the position of the participants’ bodies differed, the position and movement direction of their spatial indicator (i.e. mouse cursor in Experiment 1 and index finger in Experiment 2) were identical.

Note that in the present multi-touch setup, the virtual objects lacked any haptic boundaries and thus did not pose clear restrictions on subjects’ movement amplitudes. In consequence, subjects did not slow down when approaching the end of the object, but extended their swipe gesture way beyond its boundary. Therefore, any speed changes within the measured area were fairly monotonic.

A previous study examining the temporal compatibility of action effects (Kunde, 2003) analysed the data in a different way, by computing the interaction of action duration and effect duration. This procedure was not adopted in Experiment 3 to make the analysis procedure consistent with that used in Experiments 1 and 2. However, to facilitate the comparison with Kunde’s study, the data were re-analysed accordingly: initiation times from compatible and incompatible blocks were collapsed across the two choice conditions and a repeated measures ANOVA entered with the factors action duration and CPR duration. There was a main effect of action duration, F(1,23) = 163.576, p < 0.001, η _p ² = 0.877, and an interaction with CPR duration, F(1,23) = 6.753, p = 0.016, η _p ² = 0.227. Fast actions were initiated more quickly than slow actions, and compatible mappings (i.e. fast actions being followed by fast CPR and slow movements by slow CPR) led to shorter initiation times than incompatible mappings. However, the main effect of CPR duration was absent, F < 1, indicating that initiation times for actions that triggered fast effects were not generally shorter than those triggering slow effects. The latter result diverges from previous findings (Kunde, 2003).

Analogous to the initiation times, movement durations were re-analysed with the factors action duration and CPR duration. There were main effects of action duration, F(1,23) = 149.705, p < 0.001, η _p ² = 0.867, CPR duration, F(1,23) = 7.520, p = 0.012, η _p ² = 0.246, and an interaction, F(1,23) = 6.062, p = 0.022, η _p ² = 0.209. Fast movements were performed faster than slow movements, and movements with slow CPR were performed faster than movements with fast CPR. Moreover, with a compatible mapping movements were performed faster than with an incompatible mapping. The presence of an interaction for the movement durations is in contrast with the findings of Kunde (2003).

Aglioti, S. M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., & Urgesi, C. (2008). Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11(9), 1109–1116. doi:10.1038/nn.2182.CrossRefPubMed

Ansorge, U. (2002). Spatial intention–response compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 109(3), 285–299. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00062-2.CrossRefPubMed

Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (1997). Delayed auditory feedback in synchronization. Journal of Motor Behavior, 29(1), 35–46. doi:10.1080/00222899709603468.CrossRefPubMed

Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). The joint flanker effect: sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 371–385. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2709-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bertenthal, B. I., Longo, M. R., & Kosobud, A. (2006). Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(2), 210–225. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.210.PubMed

Blakemore, S. J., Goodbody, S. J., & Wolpert, D. M. (1998). Predicting the consequences of our own actions: the role of sensorimotor context estimation. Journal of Neuroscience, 18(18), 7511–7518.PubMed

Bouquet, C. A., Shipley, T. F., Capa, R. L., & Marshall, P. J. (2011). Motor contagion: goal-directed actions are more contagious than non-goal-directed actions. Experimental Psychology, 58(1), 71–78. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000069.CrossRefPubMed

Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106(1–2), 3–22. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00024-X.CrossRefPubMed

Catmur, C., & Heyes, C. (2013). Is it what you do, or when you do it? The roles of contingency and similarity in pro-social effects of imitation. Cognitive Science, 37(8), 1541–1552. doi:10.1111/cogs.12071.CrossRefPubMed

Chaminade, T., Meary, D., Orliaguet, J.-P., & Decety, J. (2001). Is perceptual anticipation a motor simulation? A PET study. Neuroreport, 12(17), 3669–3674. doi:10.1097/00001756-200112040-00013.CrossRefPubMed

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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893.CrossRefPubMed

Costantini, M., Ambrosini, A., & Sinigaglia, C. (2012). Does how I look at what you’re doing depend on what I’m doing? Acta Psychologica, 141(2), 199–204. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.07.012.CrossRefPubMed

Csibra, G. (2007). Action mirroring and action understanding: an alternative account. In P. Haggard, Y. Rosetti, & M. Kawato (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 22, pp. 435–459)., Sensorimotor foundations of higher cognition Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Coster, L., Verschuere, B., Goubert, L., Tsakiris, M., & Brass, M. (2013). I suffer more from your pain when you act like me: being imitated enhances affective responses to seeing someone else in pain. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(3), 519–532. doi:10.3758/s13415-013-0168-4.CrossRef

Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(5), 974. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974.PubMedPubMedCentral

Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1248–1260. doi:10.1037/a0031031.PubMed

Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 229–240. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.229.PubMed

Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in action–effect learning. Psychological Research, 68(2–3), 138–154. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0151-8.CrossRefPubMed

Flach, R., Press, C., Badets, A., & Heyes, C. (2010). Shaking hands: priming by social action effects. British Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 739–749. doi:10.1348/000712609X484595.CrossRefPubMed

Flanagan, J. R., & Johansson, R. S. (2003). Action plans used in action observation. Nature, 424(6950), 769–771. doi:10.1038/nature01861.CrossRefPubMed

Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gowen, E., & Poliakoff, E. (2012). How does visuomotor priming differ for biological and non-biological stimuli? A review of the evidence. Psychological Research, 76(4), 407–420. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0389-5.CrossRefPubMed

Graf, M., Reitzner, B., Corves, C., Casile, A., Giese, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Predicting point-light actions in real-time. Neuroimage, 36(Supplement 2), T22–T32. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.017.CrossRefPubMed

Herwig, A., & Horstmann, G. (2011). Action–effect associations revealed by eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(3), 531–537. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0063-3.CrossRefPubMed

Herwig, A., Prinz, W., & Waszak, F. (2007). Two modes of sensorimotor integration in intention-based and stimulus-based actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(11), 1540–1554. doi:10.1080/17470210601119134.CrossRef

Heyes, C. (2013). Imitation - associative and context-dependent. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hoffmann, J., Lenhard, A., Sebald, A., & Pfister, R. (2009). Movements or targets: what makes an action in action–effect learning? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(12), 2433–2449. doi:10.1080/17470210902922079.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 55(4), 270–279. doi:10.1007/BF00419687.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (2004). Coloring an action: intending to produce color events eliminates the Stroop effect. Psychological Research, 74–90(2–3), 74–90. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0146-5.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: On the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 113–136). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. doi:10.1017/S0140525X01000103.CrossRefPubMed

Iacoboni, M., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V., Buccino, G., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system. PLoS Biology, 3(3), e79. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Crognale, M. A., & Kunde, W. (2012). Effective rotations: action effects determine the interplay of mental and manual rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 489–501. doi:10.1037/a0026997.CrossRef

Janczyk, M., Yamaguchi, M., Proctor, R. W., & Pfister, R. (2015). Response–effect compatibility with complex actions: the case of wheel rotations. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 77(3), 930–940. doi:10.3758/s13414-014-0828-7 CrossRef

Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Variable action effects: response control by context-specific effect anticipations. Psychological Research, 68(2–3), 155–162. doi:10.1007/s00426-003-0152-7.CrossRefPubMed

Klapp, S. T. (1995). Motor response programming during simple choice reaction time: the role of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(5), 1015–1027. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.5.1015.

Kourtis, D., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2010). Favouritism in the motor system: social interaction modulates action simulation. Biology Letters, 6(6), 758–761. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.0478.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kühn, S., Müller, B. C. N., van Baaren, R. B., Wietzker, A., Dijksterhuis, A., & Brass, M. (2010). Why do I like you when you behave like me? Neural mechanisms mediating positive consequences of observing someone being imitated. Social Neuroscience, 5(4), 384–392. doi:10.1080/17470911003633750.CrossRefPubMed

Kunde, W. (2001). Response–effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(2), 387–394. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387.PubMed

Kunde, W. (2003). Temporal response–effect compatibility. Psychological Research, 67(3), 153–159. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0114-5.CrossRefPubMed

Kunde, W., Hoffmann, J., & Zellmann, P. (2002). The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning. Acta Psychologica, 109(2), 137–155. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00053-1.CrossRefPubMed

Kunde, W., Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation and execution of actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A(1), 87–106. doi:10.1080/02724980343000143.CrossRef

Kunde, W., Lozo, L., & Neumann, R. (2011). Effect-based control of facial expressions: evidence from action–effect compatibility. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(4), 820–826. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0093-x.CrossRefPubMed

Liepelt, R., & Brass, M. (2010). Top-down modulation of motor priming by belief about animacy. Experimental Psychology, 57(3), 221–227. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000028.CrossRefPubMed

Loehr, J. D., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Joint action: From perception-action links to shared representations. In W. Prinz, M. Beisert, & A. Herwig (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline (pp. 333–356). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRef

Longo, M. R., & Bertenthal, B. I. (2009). Attention modulates the specificity of automatic imitation to human actors. Experimental Brain Research, 192(4), 739–744. doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1649-5.CrossRefPubMed

Newman-Norlund, R. D., van Schie, H. T., van Zuijlen, A. M. J., & Bekkering, H. (2007). The mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared with imitative action. Nature Neuroscience, 10(7), 817–818. doi:10.1038/nn1911.CrossRefPubMed

Nishitani, N., & Hari, R. (2000). Temporal dynamics of cortical representation for action. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(2), 913–918. doi:10.1073/pnas.97.2.913.CrossRef

Pfeiffer, U. J., Timmermans, B., Bente, B., Vogeley, K., & Schilbach, L. (2012). A non-verbal turing test: differentiating mind from machine in gaze-based social interaction. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e27591. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027591.CrossRef

Pfister, R., Dignath, D., Hommel, B., & Kunde, W. (2013). It takes two to imitate: anticipation and imitation in social interaction. Psychological Science, 24(10), 2117–2121. doi:10.1177/0956797613489139.CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R., Dolk, T., Prinz, W., & Kunde, W. (2014a). Joint response–effect compatibility. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(3), 817–822. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0528-7.CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R., Janczyk, M., Wirth, R., Dignath, D., & Kunde, W. (2014b). Thinking with portals: revisiting kinematic cues to intention. Cognition, 133(2), 464–473. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.07.012.CrossRefPubMed

Pfister, R., Obhi, S. S., Rieger, M., & Wenke, D. (2014c). Action and perception in social contexts: intentional binding for social action effects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 667. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00667.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129–154. doi:10.1080/713752551.CrossRef

Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 111–196). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Ramnani, N., & Miall, R. C. (2004). A system in the human brain for predicting the actions of others. Nature Neuroscience, 7(1), 85–90. doi:10.1038/nn1168.CrossRefPubMed

Rotman, G., Troje, N. F., Johansson, R. S., & Flanagan, J. R. (2006). Eye movements when observing predictable and unpredictable actions. Journal of Neurophysiology, 96(3), 1358–1369. doi:10.1152/jn.00227.2006.CrossRefPubMed

Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(2), 225–237. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.2.225.CrossRefPubMed

Sartori, L., Bucchioni, G., & Castiello, U. (2013). When emulation becomes reciprocity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 662–669. doi:10.1093/scan/nss044.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition, 88(3), B11–B21. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00043-X.CrossRefPubMed

Sparenberg, P., Springer, A., & Prinz, W. (2012). Predicting others’ actions: evidence for a constant time delay in action simulation. Psychological Research, 76(1), 41–49. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0321-z.CrossRefPubMed

Springer, A., Brandstädter, S., Liepelt, R., Birngruber, T., Giese, M., Mechsner, F., & Prinz, W. (2011). Motor execution affects action prediction. Brain and Cognition, 76(1), 26–36. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.03.007.CrossRefPubMed

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. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.4.915.PubMedPubMedCentral

Stürmer, B., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2000). Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(6), 1746–1759. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.6.1746.PubMed

Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., & Irwin, D. E. (1998). Our eyes do not always go where we want them to go: capture of the eyes by new objects. Psychological Science, 9(5), 379–385. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00071.CrossRef

Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(11), 2015–2024. doi:10.1162/jocn.2008.20144.CrossRefPubMed

Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15(1), 71–74. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01501012.x.CrossRefPubMed

Verschoor, S. A., Eenshuistra, R. M., Kray, J., Biro, S., & Hommel, B. (2011). Explicit learning of arbitrary and non-arbitrary action–effect relations in adults and 4-year-olds. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 354. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00354.PubMedPubMedCentral

Watanabe, K. (2008). Behavioral speed contagion: automatic modulation of movement timing by observation of body movements. Cognition, 106(3), 1514–1524. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.001.CrossRefPubMed

Wiese, E., Wykowska, A., Zwickel, J., & Müller, H. J. (2012). I see what you mean: how attentional selection is shaped by ascribing intentions to others. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e45391. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045391.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wolpert, D. M., Diedrichsen, J., & Flanagan, J. R. (2011). Principles of sensorimotor learning. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(12), 739–751. doi:10.1038/nrn3112.PubMed

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, B, 358(1431), 593–602. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1238.CrossRef

Titel: Does the anticipation of compatible partner reactions facilitate action planning in joint tasks?
Auteur: Romy Müller
Publicatiedatum: 09-05-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0670-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2016

Impact of action primes on implicit processing of thematic and functional similarity relations: evidence from eye-tracking

The relation between measures of cognitive and motor functioning in 5- to 6-year-old children

Mental subtraction and multiplication recruit both phonological and visuospatial resources: evidence from a symmetric dual-task design

Interference of lateralized distractors on arithmetic problem solving: a functional role for attention shifts in mental calculation

Congruency sequence effects and previous response times: conflict adaptation or temporal learning?

Erratum to: Route and survey processing of topographical memory during navigation