Action during body perception: Processing time affects self–other correspondences

Reed, Catherine L.; McGoldrick, John E.

doi:10.1080/17470910701376811

Cited by 29 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, behavioral studies showed an influence of action observation on action execution (Brass, Bekkering, Wohlschlager, & Prinz, 2000;Brass, Bekkering, & Prinz, 2001;Kilner, Paulignan, & Blakemore, 2003;Stürmer, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2000) and visa verse (Jacobs & Shiffrar, 2005;Reed & Farah, 1995;Reed & McGoldrick, 2007). However, although these findings provide insight into the underlying representations of action perception, little is known about the exact timing of the proposed action simulation process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Predicting others’ actions: evidence for a constant time delay in action simulation

Sparenberg

Springer

Prinz

2011

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent evidence indicates that humans can precisely predict the outcome of occluded actions. It has been suggested that these predictions arise from a mental simulation which might run in real-time. The present experiments aimed to specify the time course of this simulation process. Participants watched transiently occluded point-light actions and the temporal outcome after occlusion was manipulated. Participants were instructed to judge the temporal coherence of the action after a short (Experiment 1) and a long occlusion period (Experiment 2). Both experiments revealed a comparable negative point of subjective equality (PSE), indicating that action simulation took constantly longer than the observed action itself. Such a temporal error was not present when inverted actions were used, (Experiment 3) ruling out a pure visually driven effect. The results suggest that the temporal error is due to costs arising from a switch from action perception to an internal simulation process involving motor representations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Predicting others’ actions: evidence for a constant time delay in action simulation

Sparenberg

Springer

Prinz

2011

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one of many experiments demonstrating this effect, Reed and McGoldrick (2007) asked observers to judge whether two sequentially presented pictures of body postures were the same or different; in some of the trials, the leg posture differed in the two pictures; in others, the arm posture differed. While observers were making their judgments about the postures, they planned and produced movements with either their arms or legs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reed & McGoldrick, 2007; Reed & Farah, 1995) to investigate whether the listener’s motor system is involved in processing a speaker’s gestures. Gestures do not require a physical response from the listener.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding gesture: Is the listener’s motor system involved?

Ping¹,

Goldin‐Meadow²,

Beilock³

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Listeners are able to glean information from the gestures that speakers produce, seemingly without conscious awareness. However, little is known about the mechanisms that underlie this process.Research on human action understanding shows that perceiving another's actions results in automatic activation of the motor system in the observer, which then affects the observer's understanding of the actor's goals. We ask here whether perceiving another's gesture can similarly result in automatic activation of the motor system in the observer. In Experiment 1, we first establish a new procedure that uses listener response times to study how gesture impacts sentence comprehension. In Experiment 2, we use this procedure, in conjunction with a secondary motor task, to investigate whether the listener's motor system is involved in this process. We show that moving arms and hands (but not legs and feet) interferes with the listener's ability to use information conveyed in a speaker's hand gestures. Our data thus suggest that understanding gesture relies, at least in part, on the listener's own motor system.When we watch others act on the world, our own motor systems are activated, which, in turn, affects how we interpret the actors' goals (e.g., Buccino et al., 2001;Hamilton, Wolpert & Frith, 2004;Wilson, Collins & Bingham, 2005;Sebanz, Bekkering & Knoblich, 2006). Here we ask whether this same process takes place even when the actions we observe do not have a direct effect on the world, but rather impact the world indirectly through their communicative potential. When people speak, they often move their hands--they gesture--and listeners are able to glean substantive information from these gestures, although typically without being aware of doing so. Does watching a speaker who gestures activate our own motor system? Perception and action have been shown to be linked, both within an individual and across individuals. In one line of studies, participants must perceive and/or produce bilateral movements that are perceptually and motorically difficult. Without training, humans can easily perceive and produce movements that are either identical (e.g., simultaneously moving both pointer fingers left and right together-a 0-degree phase) or symmetric (e.g., simultaneously moving both pointer fingers in and out together-a 180-degree phase). Distinguishing or producing bilateral movements at any other phase is difficult, requires extensive practice, and falls apart once movements reach a threshold frequency. Within an individual, learning to perceive distinctions at difficult phases (perception) improves the ability to produce movements (action) at those phases-movements that otherwise would require extensive motor practice to master (Wilson, Snapp-Childs & Bingham, 2010; see also Bingham, Schmidt & Zaal, 1999;Zaal, Bingham & Schmidt, 2000). Conversely, learning to produce movements at particular phases, without visual feedback of one's own body, improves perceptual discrimination of those phases specifically (Hecht, Vogt & ...

show abstract

“…Typically, behavior and brain activity are tested in a prone/seated position, although many or even most interactions with humans occur in the standing or walking position (Parsons, 1987;Arzy et al, 2006;Reed and McGoldrick, 2007), and brain mechanisms may differ depending on the body position (Gaunet and Berthoz, 2000;Arzy et al, 2006;Lobmaier and Mast, 2007). Moreover, most neuroimaging studies [i.e., functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) or positron emission tomography (PET)] are performed in the supine position.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental Imagery of Self-Location during Spontaneous and Active Self–Other Interactions: An Electrical Neuroimaging Study

Thirioux¹,

Mercier²,

Jorland³

et al. 2010

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Substantial data from the cognitive neurosciences point to the importance of bodily processing for the development of a comprehensive theory of the self. A key aspect of the bodily self is self-location, the experience that the self is localized at a specific position in space within one's bodily borders (embodied self-location). Although the neural mechanisms of self-location have been studied by manipulating the spatial location of one's visual perspective during mental imagery, such experiments were conducted in constrained, explicit, and unecological contexts such as explicit instructions in a prone/seated position, although most human interactions occur spontaneously while standing/walking. Using a motor paradigm, we investigated the behavioral and neural mechanisms of spontaneous self-location and mental body transformations during active human interaction. Using own-body imagery using spontaneous and explicit changes in self-location in standing participants, we report that spontaneous interactions with an avatar are neurally indistinguishable from explicit own-body transformation with disembodied self-location but differ from explicit own-body transformation with embodied self-location at 400 -600 ms after stimulus onset. We discuss these findings with respect to the neural mechanisms of perspective-taking and selflocation in spontaneous human interaction.

show abstract

Action during body perception: Processing time affects self–other correspondences

Cited by 29 publications

References 55 publications

Predicting others’ actions: evidence for a constant time delay in action simulation

Predicting others’ actions: evidence for a constant time delay in action simulation

Understanding gesture: Is the listener’s motor system involved?

Mental Imagery of Self-Location during Spontaneous and Active Self–Other Interactions: An Electrical Neuroimaging Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About