Mechanisms for mutual support in motor interactions

Abstract

What is the key to successful interaction? Is it sufficient to represent a common goal, or does the way our partner achieves that goal count as well? How do we react when our partner misbehaves? We used a turn-taking music-like task requiring participants to play sequences of notes together with a partner, and we investigated how people adapt to a partner’s error that violates their expectations. Errors consisted of either playing a wrong note of a sequence that the agents were playing together (thus preventing the achievement of the joint goal) or playing the expected note with an unexpected action. In both cases, we found post-error slowing and inaccuracy suggesting the participants’ implicit tendency to correct the partner’s error and produce the action that the partner should have done. We argue that these “joint” monitoring processes depend on the motor predictions made within a (dyadic) motor plan and may represent a basic mechanism for mutual support in motor interactions.

Regulating mirroring of emotions: A social-specific mechanism?

“…including imitation-inhibition, perspective-taking, joint action, and lie detection (Boukarras et al, 2021;Brass et al, 2009;Sacheli et al, 2021;Santiesteban, Banissy, et al, 2012;Santiesteban et al, 2015;Santiesteban, White, et al, 2012;. For example, in the motor domain, it is important to regulate imitation of observed actions to prevent over-imitation and produce our own independent actions; necessary skills for successful social interaction.…”

Taking apart what brings us together: The role of action prediction, perspective-taking, and theory of mind in joint action

“…Although a simple motor task, interaction with a partner in the JA task might, unlike the NI task, require taking into account the partner’s perspective, leading to a behavioural cost when interacting with a partner having a reversed button-animal association. Accordingly, previous studies applying similar experimental designs showed an interaction effect between the Task (JA/NI) and the Action-Outcome Association (Coherent/Reversed), showing decay in the participants’ performance in the Reversed Action-Outcome Association condition that was selective for the JA task (Sacheli, Arcangeli, & Paulesu, 2018; Sacheli et al, 2021; Sacheli, Meyer, et al, 2019). In this study, we aimed to replicate such a JA-specific effect and explore its possible predictors.…”

“…The shape of the two buttons afforded two different actions to operate on: a whole-hand press on the bigger button and an indexfinger press on the smaller button. Sacheli et al, 2021;Sacheli, Meyer, et al, 2019). In this study, we aimed to replicate such a JA-specific effect and explore its possible predictors.…”

Joint action with artificial agents: Human-likeness in behaviour and morphology affects sensorimotor signaling and social inclusion

“…Only a few studies so far have investigated the impact of errors on joint action dynamics, mainly focusing on self-and-other error and action monitoring (e.g., Loehr et al, 2013;Moreau, 2021). A recent study by Sacheli and colleagues (Sacheli et al, 2021) showed that errors in joint action have an impact on sensorimotor signaling. Using a musical turntaking task, the authors showed that violation of expectations driven by the partner's error triggers an implicit tendency to correct the error, sacrificing individual efficiency in favor of sensorimotor signaling.…”