Top

Gepubliceerd in:

08-11-2022 | Original Article

The pleasantness and unpleasantness of an object distinctively drives its grasping prediction: behavioral evidence

Auteurs: Ghislain Saunier, Priscila da Silva Azevedo, Vitoria Labiapari Pinto, Anaelli Aparecida Nogueira-Campos

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2023

Abstract

Action and perception share a common sensorimotor network permitting a functional action–perception coupling. This coupling would permit to predict the outcome of others’ actions. Moreover, recent findings suggest that action–perception linkage could be sensitive to emotional content of the visual scene. The present study sought to address how emotion inherent to an object (pleasantness and unpleasantness) affects action prediction processing. To this end, we compared the participants’ temporal estimative of the hand contact with emotional objects in occlusion and full vision conditions. We found that the emotion strongly interfered in the prediction of its grasping. Indeed, the participants highly anticipated the touch instant for unpleasant valence compared to pleasant and neutral ones. Moreover, the visual conditions (i.e., occlusion and full vision) affect the magnitude of the predictive error except to unpleasant object. Accordingly, the present results unveil that pleasantness and unpleasantness of an object distinctively drive the prediction of its touch instant.

vorige artikel Proactive control of attention in math-anxious individuals

volgende artikel Are predictive saccades linked to the processing of peripheral information?

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

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. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2182CrossRefPubMed

Anelli, F., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2012). Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(4), 1627–1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.09.001CrossRefPubMed

Anelli, F., Nicoletti, R., Bolzani, R., & Borghi, A. M. (2013). Keep away from danger: dangerous objects in dynamic and static situations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00344

Azevedo, I. L., Keniston, L., Rocha, H. R., Imbiriba, L. A., Saunier, G., & Nogueira-Campos, A. A. (2021). Emotional categorization of objects: a novel clustering approach and the effect of depression. Behavioural Brain Research, 406, 113223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113223CrossRefPubMed

Bauer, H., & Nirnberger, G. (1981). Concept identification as a function of preceding negative or positive spontaneous shifts in slow brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 18(4), 466–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1981.tb02482.xCrossRefPubMed

Craighero, L., & Mele, S. (2018). Equal kinematics and visual context but different purposes: Observer’s moral rules modulate motor resonance. Cortex, 104, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.03.032CrossRefPubMed

Craighero, L., Bonetti, F., Massarenti, L., Canto, R., Fabbri Destro, M., & Fadiga, L. (2008). Temporal prediction of touch instant during observation of human and robot grasping. Brain Research Bulletin, 75(6), 770–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2008.01.014CrossRefPubMed

Craighero, L., Zorzi, V., Canto, R., & Franca, M. (2014). Same kinematics but different objects during action observation: detection times and motor evoked potentials. Visual Cognition, 22(5), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2014.904460CrossRef

Cunnington, R., Windischberger, C., Deecke, L., & Moser, E. (2003). The preparation and readiness for voluntary movement: a high-field event-related fMRI study of the Bereitschafts-BOLD response. NeuroImage, 20(1), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00291-xCrossRefPubMed

de Assis Chagas, A. M., Alves de Faria, I., Saunier, G., Bittencourt-Navarrete, R. E., & Nogueira-Campos, A. A. (2021). Implicit action prediction constrains observed biological action reconstruction. Heliyon, 7(2), e06189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06189CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

de Oliveira, L. A. S., Imbiriba, L. A., Russo, M. M., Nogueira-Campos, A. A., Rodrigues, E., Pereira, C. M. G., Volchan, E., & Vargas, C. D. (2012). Preparing to grasp emotionally laden stimuli. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e45235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Deecke, L. (1990). Electrophysiological correlates of movement initiation. Revue Neurologique, 146(10), 612–619.PubMed

Erlhagen, W. (2003). Internal models for visual perception. Biological Cybernetics, 88(5), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-002-0387-1CrossRefPubMed

Esteves, P. O., Oliveira, L. A. S., Nogueira-Campos, A. A., Saunier, G., Pozzo, T., Oliveira, J. M., Rodrigues, E. C., Volchan, E., & Vargas, C. D. (2016). Motor planning of goal-directed action is tuned by the emotional valence of the stimulus: a kinematic study. Scientific Reports, 6, 28780. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28780CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2000). Visuomotor neurons: Ambiguity of the discharge or ‘motor’ perception? International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology, 35(2–3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8760(99)00051-3CrossRefPubMed

Fontana, A. P., Kilner, J. M., Rodrigues, E. C., Joffily, M., Nighoghossian, N., Vargas, C. D., & Sirigu, A. (2012). Role of the parietal cortex in predicting incoming actions. NeuroImage, 59(1), 556–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.046CrossRefPubMed

Gazzola, V., & Keysers, C. (2009). The observation and execution of actions share motor and somatosensory voxels in all tested subjects: Single-subject analyses of unsmoothed fMRI data. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y.: 1991), 19(6), 1239–1255. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn181

Giocondo, F., Borghi, A. M., Baldassarre, G., & Caligiore, D. (2022). Emotions modulate affordances-related motor responses: a priming experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.701714

Giorello, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2007). Perception in action. Acta Bio-Medica: Atenei Parmensis, 78(Suppl 1), 49–57.PubMed

Graf, M., Reitzner, B., Corves, C., Casile, A., Giese, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Predicting point-light actions in real-time. NeuroImage, 36(Suppl 2), T22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.017CrossRefPubMed

Grush, R. (2004). The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. The behavioral and brain sciences, 27(3), 377–396; discussion 396–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x04000093

JASP Team. (2022). JASP (Version 0.16.1).

Jeannerod, M. (1981). Intersegmental coodination during reaching at natural visual objects. Attention and performance, 153–169

Jeannerod, M. (1994). The hand and the object: the role of posterior parietal cortex in forming motor representations. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 72(5), 535–541. https://doi.org/10.1139/y94-077.CrossRefPubMed

Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2014). Hebbian learning and predictive mirror neurons for actions, sensations and emotions. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London. Series B, biological sciences, 369(1644), 20130175. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0175

Kilner, J. M., Friston, K. J., & Frith, C. D. (2007). Predictive coding: an account of the mirror neuron system. Cognitive Processing, 8(3), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0170-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Knoblich, G., & Flach, R. (2001). Predicting the effects of actions: Interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science, 12(6), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00387CrossRefPubMed

Kornhuber, H. H., & Deecke, L. (1965). Changes in the brain potential in voluntary movements and passive movements in man: readiness potential and reafferent potentials. Pflugers Archiv Fur Die Gesamte Physiologie Des Menschen Und Der Tiere, 284, 1–17.CrossRefPubMed

Lagravinese, G., Bisio, A., De Ferrari, A. R., Pelosin, E., Ruggeri, P., Bove, M., & Avanzino, L. (2017). An emotion-enriched context influences the effect of action observation on cortical excitability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 504. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00504CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lima Portugal, L. C., de Alves, R. C. S., Junior, O. F., Sanchez, T. A., Mocaiber, I., Volchan, E., Smith Erthal, F., David, I. A., Kim, J., Oliveira, L., Padmala, S., Chen, G., Pessoa, L., & Pereira, M. G. (2020). Interactions between emotion and action in the brain. NeuroImage, 214, 116728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116728CrossRefPubMed

Miall, R. C. (2003). Connecting mirror neurons and forward models. NeuroReport, 14(17), 2135–2137. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200312020-00001CrossRefPubMed

Mobbs, D., Hagan, C. C., Dalgleish, T., Silston, B., & Prévost, C. (2015). The ecology of human fear: Survival optimization and the nervous system. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 55. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00055CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mustile, M., Giocondo, F., Caligiore, D., Borghi, A. M., & Kourtis, D. (2021). Motor inhibition to dangerous objects: electrophysiological evidence for task-dependent aversive affordances. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01690CrossRefPubMed

Nogueira-Campos, A. A., de Oliveira, L. A. S., Della-Maggiore, V., Esteves, P. O., de Rodrigues, E., & C., & Vargas, C. D. (2014). Corticospinal excitability preceding the grasping of emotion-laden stimuli. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e94824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094824CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nogueira-Campos, A. A., Saunier, G., Della-Maggiore, V., De Oliveira, L. A., Rodrigues, E. C., & Vargas, C. D. (2016). Observing grasping actions directed to emotion-laden objects: Effects upon corticospinal excitability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 434.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4CrossRefPubMed

Pereira, M. G., de Oliveira, L., Erthal, F. S., Joffily, M., Mocaiber, I. F., Volchan, E., & Pessoa, L. (2010). Emotion affects action: Midcingulate cortex as a pivotal node of interaction between negative emotion and motor signals. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.10.1.94CrossRef

Picard, N., & Strick, P. L. (1996). Motor areas of the medial wall: a review of their location and functional activation. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y.: 1991), 6(3), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/6.3.342

Pozzo, T., Papaxanthis, C., Petit, J. L., Schweighofer, N., & Stucchi, N. (2006). Kinematic features of movement tunes perception and action coupling. Behavioural Brain Research, 169(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2005.12.005CrossRefPubMed

Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2016). The mirror mechanism: A basic principle of brain function. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 17(12), 757–765. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2016.135CrossRefPubMed

Saunier, G., Papaxanthis, C., Vargas, C. D., & Pozzo, T. (2008). Inference of complex human motion requires internal models of action: Behavioral evidence. Experimental Brain Research, 185(3), 399–409.CrossRefPubMed

Saunier, G., Martins, E. F., Dias, E. C., de Oliveira, J. M., Pozzo, T., & Vargas, C. D. (2013). Electrophysiological correlates of biological motion permanence in humans. Behavioural Brain Research, 236, 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.08.038CrossRefPubMed

Saunier, G., Paillard, A. C., Vargas, C. D., & Pozzo, T. (2015). Visual inference of arm movement is constrained by motor representations. Behavioural Brain Research, 290, 197–200.CrossRefPubMed

Saunier, G., Fontana, A. P., De Oliveira, J. M., Py, M. O., Pozzo, T., & Vargas, C. D. (2021). Cerebellar damage affects the inference of human motion. Neurocase, 27(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13554794.2021.1905853CrossRefPubMed

Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Prospective coding in event representation. Cognitive Processing, 8(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0167-xCrossRefPubMed

Shackman, A. J., Salomons, T. V., Slagter, H. A., Fox, A. S., Winter, J. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2011). The integration of negative affect, pain and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 12(3), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2994CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Silverman, I. W. (2010). Simple reaction time: It is not what it used to be. The American Journal of Psychology, 123(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.1.0039CrossRefPubMed

Smeets, J. B., & Brenner, E. (1999). A new view on grasping. Motor control, 3(3), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.1123/mcj.3.3.237.CrossRefPubMed

Stadler, W., Springer, A., Parkinson, J., & Prinz, W. (2012). Movement kinematics affect action prediction: Comparing human to non-human point-light actions. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(4), 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0431-2CrossRefPubMed

Stapel, J. C., Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2012). Online prediction of others’ actions: The contribution of the target object, action context and movement kinematics. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(4), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0423-2CrossRefPubMed

Urgen, B. A., & Saygin, A. P. (2020). Predictive processing account of action perception: Evidence from effective connectivity in the action observation network. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 128, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.03.014CrossRefPubMed

Urgesi, C., Alaerts, K., & Craighero, L. (2020). Editorial: How do motivational states influence motor resonance? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00027

Zhao, L. (2017). Separate pathways for the processing of affordance of neutral and dangerous object. Current Psychology, 36(4), 833–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9472-9CrossRef

Titel: The pleasantness and unpleasantness of an object distinctively drives its grasping prediction: behavioral evidence
Auteurs: Ghislain Saunier
Priscila da Silva Azevedo
Vitoria Labiapari Pinto
Anaelli Aparecida Nogueira-Campos
Publicatiedatum: 08-11-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2023
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01765-w

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2023

Facilitation and interference effects of the multisensory context on learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cognitive flexibility assessment with a new Reversal learning task paradigm compared with the Wisconsin card sorting test exploring the moderating effect of gender and stress

Visible skin disease symptoms of another person reduce automatic imitation of their hand movements

Multisensory transfer effects in implicit and explicit category learning

Using clustering algorithms to examine the association between working memory training trajectories and therapeutic outcomes among psychiatric and healthy populations

The spatial extent of focused attention modulates attentional disengagement