Verbal social primes alter motor contagion during action observation

Sparks, Samuel; Douglas, T.; Kritikos, Ada

doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1113304

Cited by 8 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Continuing on this analysis, also prosocial words (e.g., "join") shown prior to action observation are able to shape perception and behavior (Leighton et al, 2010). Of relevance for the present study, verbal social primes can increase interference when participants execute an action different from the observed one (Sparks et al, 2016). Along with visuomotor effects, visuomotor interference -a higher variance on action execution when participants observe incompatible vs compatible movements -has been described (Gandolfo et al, 2019;Kilner et al, 2003).…”

Section: Manuscript To Be Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 56%

Peer Review #1 of "Social Motor Priming: when offline interference facilitates motor execution (v0.2)"

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many daily activities involve synchronizing with other people's actions. Previous literature has revealed that a slowdown of performance occurs whenever the action to be carried out is different to the one observed (i.e., visuomotor interference). However, action execution can be facilitated by observing a different action if it calls for an interactive gesture (i.e., social motor priming). The aim of this study is to investigate the costs and benefits of spontaneously processing a social response and then executing the same or a different action. Participants performed two different types of grips, which could be either congruent or not with the socially appropriate response and with the observed action. In particular, participants performed a precision grip (PG; thumb-index fingers opposition) or a wholehand grasp (WHG; fingers-palm opposition) after observing videos showing an actor performing a PG and addressing them (interactive condition) or not (non-interactive condition). Crucially, in the interactive condition, the most appropriate response was a WHG, but in 50 percent of trials participants were asked to perform a PG. This procedure allowed us to measure both the facilitator effect of performing an action appropriate to the social context (WHG)-but different with respect to the observed one (PG)-and the cost of inhibiting it. These effects were measured by means of 3-D kinematical analysis of movement. Results show that, in terms of reaction time and movement time, the interactive request facilitated (i.e., speeded) the socially appropriate action (WHG), whereas interfered with (i.e., delayed) a different action (PG), although observed actions were always PG. This interference also manifested with an increase of maximum grip aperture, which seemingly reflects the concurrent representation of the socially appropriate response. Overall, these findings extend previous research by revealing that physically incongruent action representations can be integrated into a single action plan even during an offline task and without any training.

show abstract

Section: Manuscript To Be Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 56%

Peer Review #1 of "Social Motor Priming: when offline interference facilitates motor execution (v0.2)"

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the arm-waving paradigms are online tasks requiring simultaneous action observation and execution, participants would be tracking the model's hand simultaneously with executing their own actions. This contrasts with offline trajectory priming studies where participants alternate between observing and executing actions (Griffiths & Tipper, 2009Hardwick & Edwards, 2011;Sparks, Douglas, & Kritikos, 2016;Sparks, Sidari, et al, 2016). In some instantiations of the trajectory priming paradigm, participants can shift their covert and overt visual attention away from the model to their target object before or during action execution (Griffiths & Tipper, 2009Sparks, Douglas, & Kritikos, 2016;Sparks, Sidari, et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This contrasts with offline trajectory priming studies where participants alternate between observing and executing actions (Griffiths & Tipper, 2009Hardwick & Edwards, 2011;Sparks, Douglas, & Kritikos, 2016;Sparks, Sidari, et al, 2016). In some instantiations of the trajectory priming paradigm, participants can shift their covert and overt visual attention away from the model to their target object before or during action execution (Griffiths & Tipper, 2009Sparks, Douglas, & Kritikos, 2016;Sparks, Sidari, et al, 2016). They may also turn their head away from the model towards their target before acting (Griffiths & Tipper, 2009Sparks, Douglas, & Kritikos, 2016;Sparks, Sidari, et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Offline action priming can manifest both in the time taken for the observer to initiate actions (e.g., Bach et al, 2007;Brass, Bekkering, & Prinz, 2001;Cook & Bird, 2011;Gowen, Bradshaw, Galpin, Lawrence, & Poliakoff, 2010) and the executed actions' unfolding kinematics (Griffiths & Tipper, 2009Hardwick & Edwards, 2011;Sparks, Douglas, & Kritikos, 2016). In this article, we focus on the latter, specifically, the priming of trajectory kinematics in reach-to-grasp actions (Griffiths & Tipper, 2009Hardwick & Edwards, 2011;Sparks, Douglas, & Kritikos, 2016;Sparks, Sidari, Lyons, & Kritikos, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants have been instructed to: gaze at their upcoming reach target while observing the model in the periphery to time their own actions (Hardwick & Edwards, 2011); passively watch the model's reach and close then open their eyes before executing their own action (Griffiths & Tipper, 2009; carefully watch the model's hand because their grasp type was a go/no-go signal (Sparks, Douglas, & Kritikos, 2016) or fixate centrally while covertly attending to the spatial region of the model's hand for a go signal (Sparks, Sidari, et al, 2016). In most of these studies, the instructions specified or implied that participants should spatially and selectively attend to the model's action (Griffiths & Tipper, 2009Hardwick & Edwards, 2011;Sparks, Douglas, & Kritikos, 2016). Sparks, Sidari, et al (2016) instructed participants to attend selectively to a dot that traced the model's wrist, rather than to the model's action itself.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Top-down attentional factors modulate action priming in reach-to-grasp action

Sparks

Lyons

Kritikos

2018

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies report that viewing exaggerated, high-lifting reaches (versus direct reaches) primes higher vertical deviation in wrist trajectory in the observer’s subsequent reaches (trajectory priming), but it is unclear to what extent this effect depends upon task instructions relevant to top-down attention. In two experiments, participants were instructed to gaze at a dot presented on a large monitor for a colour-change go signal that cued them to execute a direct reach to a target. In the background, the monitor also displayed life-sized films of a human model. The films were of the model either remaining still or reaching to grasp a target with either a direct trajectory or an exaggerated, high-lifting trajectory. When the dot traced the human model’s wrist throughout her movement, a robust trajectory priming effect emerged. When the dot remained stationary in a central location but the human model reached in the background, the human model’s trajectory did not alter the participants’ trajectories. Finally, when the dot traced exaggerated and direct trajectories and the human model remained stationary, the dot’s movement produced an attenuated, non-significant trajectory priming effect. These findings show that top-down attentional factors modulate trajectory priming. In addition, a moving non-human stimulus does not produce the same degree of action priming when contextual factors make salient its independence of human agency and/or intention.

show abstract

Self-bias effect: movement initiation to self-owned property is speeded for both approach and avoidance actions

Barton

Constable²,

Sparks

et al. 2020

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recall of, and physical interaction with, self-owned items is privileged over items owned by other people (Constable et al, 2011;Cunningham et al, 2008). Here we investigate approach (towards the item), compared with avoidance (away from the item) movements to images of self-and experimenter-owned items. We asked if initiation time and movement duration of button-press approach responses to self-owned items are associated with a systematic self-bias (overall faster responses), compared with avoidance movements, similar to findings of paradigms investigating affective evaluation of (unowned) items.Participants were gifted mugs to use, and after a few days they completed an approachavoidance task (Chen & Bargh, 1999;Seibt et al, 2008;Truong et al, 2016) to images of their own or the Experimenter's mug, using either congruent or incongruent movement direction mappings. There was a self-bias effect for initiation time to the self-owned mug, for both congruent and incongruent mappings, and for movement duration in the congruent mapping. The effect was abolished in Experiment 2 when participants responded based on a shape on the handle rather than mug ownership. We speculate that ownership status requires conscious processing to modulate responses. Moreover, ownership status judgements and affective evaluation may employ different mechanisms.

show abstract

Verbal social primes alter motor contagion during action observation

Cited by 8 publications

References 20 publications

Peer Review #1 of "Social Motor Priming: when offline interference facilitates motor execution (v0.2)"

Peer Review #1 of "Social Motor Priming: when offline interference facilitates motor execution (v0.2)"

Top-down attentional factors modulate action priming in reach-to-grasp action

Self-bias effect: movement initiation to self-owned property is speeded for both approach and avoidance actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About