Looking ahead: Anticipatory cueing of attention to objects others will look at

Joyce, Katherine; Schenke, Kimberley Caroline; Bayliss, Andrew P.; Bach, Patric

doi:10.1080/17588928.2015.1053443

Cited by 20 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, the deployment of visuospatial attention and the programming of saccades are governed by the inferred likelihood of events [76]. People shift their attention towards what they expect other people will look at [77,78]. These prediction biases can lead to similar attentional shifts as directly perceived gaze [79].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overt orienting of spatial attention and corticospinal excitability during action observation are unrelated

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observing moving body parts can automatically activate topographically corresponding motor representations in the primary motor cortex (M1), the so-called direct matching. Novel neurophysiological findings from social contexts are nonetheless proving that this process is not automatic as previously thought. The motor system can flexibly shift from imitative to incongruent motor preparation, when requested by a social gesture. In the present study we aim to bring an increase in the literature by assessing whether and how diverting overt spatial attention might affect motor preparation in contexts requiring interactive responses from the onlooker. Experiment 1 shows that overt attention—although anchored to an observed biological movement—can be captured by a target object as soon as a social request for it becomes evident. Experiment 2 reveals that the appearance of a short-lasting red dot in the contralateral space can divert attention from the target, but not from the biological movement. Nevertheless, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over M1 combined with electromyography (EMG) recordings (Experiment 3) indicates that attentional interference reduces corticospinal excitability related to the observed movement, but not motor preparation for a complementary action on the target. This work provides evidence that social motor preparation is impermeable to attentional interference and that a double dissociation is present between overt orienting of spatial attention and neurophysiological markers of action observation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overt orienting of spatial attention and corticospinal excitability during action observation are unrelated

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, we showed that such predictions can even affect the involuntary sharing of attention with others (i.e., joint attention). We showed that people implicitly learn what objects other individuals typically look at and direct their own attention towards these objects, in an anticipatory manner, whenever these individuals are seen again (Joyce, Schenke, Bayliss, & Bach, ). Importantly, these gaze predictions were only found when the gazing faces smiled when looking at the objects, suggesting a learning of their attitudes, not just their overt behaviour tendencies.…”

Section: Person Models As a Source And Target Of Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive social perception: Towards a unifying framework from action observation to person knowledge

Bach

Schenke

2017

Social & Personality Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Action observation is central to human social interaction.It allows people to derive what mental states drive others' behaviour and coordinate (and compete) effectively with them. Although previous accounts have conceptualised this ability in terms of bottom-up (motoric or conceptual) matching processes, more recent evidence suggests that such mechanisms cannot account for the complexity and uncertainty of the sensory input, even in cases where computations should be much simpler (i.e., low-level vision). It has therefore been argued that perception in general, and social perception in particular, is better described as a process of top-down hypothesis testing. In such models, any assumption about others-their goals, attitudes, and beliefs-is translated into predictions of expected sensory input and compared with incoming stimulation. This allows perception and action to be based on these expectations or-in case of a mismatch-for one's prior assumptions to be revised until they are better aligned with the individual's behaviour. This article will give a (selective) review of recent research from experimental psychology and (social) neuroscience that supports such views, discuss the relevant underlying models, and current gaps in research. In particular, it will argue that much headway can be made when current research on predictive social perception is integrated with classic findings from social psychology, which have already shown striking effects of prior knowledge on the processing of other people's behaviour. | INTRODUCTIONUnderstanding other people's behaviour is central to human social interaction. It allows people to derive the goals, attitudes, and beliefs guiding others' actions (Hamilton, 2009), learn which outcomes these actions will produce (Ikegami & Ganesh, 2014;Knoblich & Flach, 2001), and respond appropriately to them, often in an anticipatory manner (e.g., in joint action, Sebanz, Bekkering, & Knoblich, 2006;Sebanz & Knoblich, 2009 Since the discovery of mirror neurons (Di Pellegrino, Fadiga, Fogassi, Gallese, & Rizzolatti, 1992;Fogassi et al., 2005; in humans, see Mukamel, Ekstrom, Kaplan, Iacoboni, & Fried, 2010;Oosterhof, Tipper, & Downing, 2013), action understanding has typically been conceptualised as a bottom-up process. Observed actions-typically conceptualised as simple goaldirected behaviours such as reaching and grasping or simple object use-are first represented in perceptual structures of the brain, then "directly matched" against actions the observer could carry out themselves, which then activates goals and other states associated with the action, allowing it to be understood without "inferential processing" or "backwards projections" (e.g., Rizzolatti & Sinigaglia, 2010;Rizzolatti, Cattaneo, Fabbri-Destro & Rozzi, 2014). These ideas have been widely successful and led to the characterisation of the motor system as a "tuning fork," which passively "resonates" with observed actions (for discussion, see Uithol, van Rooij, Bekkering, & Haselager, 2011;Jacob, 2008), or fo...

show abstract

“…As soon as such models are established, they provide information about which actions will be carried out when they are re-encountered in this situation. Consistent with such views, recent studies have shown, for example, that people's attention is automatically biased towards which object someone is expected to look at based on their past history (rather than where they are actually looking; Joyce, Schenke, Bayliss, & Bach, 2015), that people are faster in identifying an action that is typically carried out by one person in a given situation, compared to an action that is typically carried out by someone else (Schenke et al, 2016), and that people learn an individual's idiosyncratic "tells" to predict their actions in gambling (Heerey & Velani, 2010).…”

Section: Predictive Person-models Elicit Motor Biases: the Face-inhibmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The observed modulation of the observer's motor system is consistent with our proposal that person identification draws upon person-models that include not only information about these individual's visual features (e.g., face shape, complexion, etc. ), or known traits (Macrae, Quinn, Mason, & Quadflieg, 2005;Quinn, Mason, & Macrae, 2009;Quinn, Mason, & Macrae, 2010), but also information about their typical behaviour (Schenke et al, 2016;Joyce et al, 2015; for theoretical arguments, see Bach & Schenke, 2017;Barressi & Moore, 1996). These actions are derived spontaneously when these athletes are seen and modulate the observer's motor system, such that prediction failuresseeing an athlete not carry out their expected actionimpairs the use of the relevant body part in the observer (Bach et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive person models elicit motor biases: the face-inhibition effect revisited

Schenke¹,

Wyer²,

Tipper³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We adapted an established paradigm (Bach & Tipper, 2007; Tipper & Bach, 2010) to test whether people derive motoric predictions about an actor's forthcoming actions from both prior knowledge about them, and the context in which they are seen. In two experiments, participants identified famous tennis and soccer players with either hand or foot responses, while these athletes were seen either carrying out or not carrying out their typical actions, in contexts in which these actions are typically seen (soccer field, tennis court) or outside these contexts (beach, awards ceremony). Identifying not-acting athletes revealed the expected negative compatibility effects, such that viewing a tennis player led to faster responses with a foot than a hand, and vice versa for a soccer player. In line with the idea that these negative compatibility effects reflect the absence of a predicted action, these effects were eliminated (or turned into positive compatibility effects), when the athletes were seen carrying out their expected actions. Strikingly, however, these motoric biases were independent of the context in which the athletes were seen, and were, if anything, more robust in the out-of-context trials, even if the context was made salient (Experiment 2). These results confirm that people hold motoric knowledge about the actions that others typically carry out and that these actions are part of their perceptual representations, which are accessed when they are re-encountered, possibly in order to resolve uncertainty in person perception.

show abstract

Looking ahead: Anticipatory cueing of attention to objects others will look at

Cited by 20 publications

References 27 publications

Overt orienting of spatial attention and corticospinal excitability during action observation are unrelated

Overt orienting of spatial attention and corticospinal excitability during action observation are unrelated

Predictive social perception: Towards a unifying framework from action observation to person knowledge

Predictive person models elicit motor biases: the face-inhibition effect revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About