Atypical interference effect of action observation in autism spectrum conditions

Abstract

BackgroundObserving incongruent actions interferes with ongoing action execution. This ‘interference effect’ is larger for observed biological actions than for non-biological actions. The current study used virtual reality to investigate the biological specificity of interference effects of action observation in autism spectrum conditions (ASC).MethodHigh-functioning adults with ASC and age- and IQ-matched healthy controls performed horizontal sinusoidal arm movements whilst observing arm movements conducted by a virtual reality agent with either human or robot form, which moved with either biological motion or at a constant velocity. In another condition, participants made the same arm movements while observing a real human. Observed arm movements were either congruent or incongruent with executed arm movements. An interference effect was calculated as the average variance in the incongruent action dimension during observation of incongruent compared with congruent movements.ResultsControl participants exhibited an interference effect when observing real human and virtual human agent incongruent movements but not when observing virtual robot agent movements. Individuals with ASC differed from controls in that they showed no interference effects for real human, virtual human or virtual robot movements.ConclusionsThe current study demonstrates atypical interference effects in ASC.

The influence of action observation on action execution: Dissociating the contribution of action on perception, perception on action, and resolving conflict

“…Additionally, our correlational findings suggest that the P3 is functionally related to the RT congruency effect. We could, however, not identify a relationship between the ERP congruency effects and non-clinical autistic traits (Bird et al, 2007;Cook et al, 2014;Gowen et al, 2008;Spengler et al, 2010). Overall, our study implies the existence of functionally distinct effects of perception on action, action on perception, and high-level selfother distinction within the imitation inhibition task.…”

“…Moreover, the strength of motor interference effect was often noted as crucial to understand inadequate control over imitative behaviours in various patient groups (Cook, Barbalat, & Blakemore, 2012;Spengler et al, 2010), including autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (Bird, Leighton, Press, & Heyes, 2007;Cook, Swapp, Pan, Bianchi-Berthouze, & Blakemore, 2014;Gowen, Stanley, & Miall, 2008;Spengler et al, 2010). In the autism domain, it was suggested that individuals with ASD potentially lack high-level social-cognitive self-other distinction, which would lead to increased congruency effects within reaction times (hyperimitation effects; Bird et al, 2007;Sowden, Koehne, Catmur, Dziobek, & Bird, 2015;Spengler et al, 2010).…”

From automata to animate beings: the scope and limits of attributing socialness to artificial agents

“…For instance, some of the studies reviewed above adhere neatly to the “like me” hypothesis by demonstrating evidence of behavioral overlap and increased engagement of the AON when participants observe familiar actions or interact with agents similar to themselves, while others do not. For example, other studies have demonstrated similar or greater AON engagement when participants observe very much unlike ‐me robotic actions compared to more familiar human actions, with similar findings for behavior engagement . Likewise, almost no correspondence with the “like me” hypothesis is found at the level of the PPN.…”

“…Automatic imitation studies seek to quantify the reflexive imitation of observed behavior, in this case, the interference of an observed robot's movements on the human perceiver's executed movements. Some evidence suggests that a biological motion profile of an observed agent impacts an observer's ongoing or subsequent movement more than a nonbiological motion profile, and that automatic imitation is greater for robotic movements with quasi‐biological motion . However, other studies call into question the necessity of biological motion of an observed action in order to interfere with the observer's motor performance.…”

“…However, other studies call into question the necessity of biological motion of an observed action in order to interfere with the observer's motor performance. While automatic imitation of robotic actions is smaller in absolute value compared to human actions, it is not completely absent, and several studies document automatic imitation of movements made by real and virtual full‐body humanoid robots, regardless of the presence of biological motion. A key factor driving automatic imitation appears to be the presence of human‐like joint configuration, and not human‐like motion per se .…”