Visual–Motor Interactions during Action Observation Are Shaped by Cognitive Context

Abstract

Abstract■ Interactions between the visual system and the motor system during action observation are important for functions such as imitation and action understanding. Here, we asked whether such processes might be influenced by the cognitive context in which actions are performed. We recorded ERPs in a delayed go/no-go task known to induce bidirectional interference between the motor system and the visual system (visuomotor interference). Static images of hand gestures were presented as go stimuli after participants had planned either a matching (congruent) or nonmatching (incongruent) action. Participants performed the identical task in two different cognitive contexts: In one, they focused on the visual image of the hand gesture shown as the go stimulus (image context), whereas in the other, they focused on the hand gesture they performed (action context). We analyzed the N170 elicited by the go stimulus to test the influence of action plans on action observation (motor-to-visual priming). We also analyzed movement-related activity following the go stimulus to examine the influence of action observation on action planning (visual-to-motor priming). Strikingly, the context manipulation reversed the direction of the priming effects: We found stronger motor-to-visual priming in the action context compared with the image context and stronger visual-to-motor priming in the image context compared with the action context. Taken together, our findings indicate that neural interactions between motor and visual processes for executed and observed actions can change depending on task demands and are sensitive to top-down control according to the context. ■

Prejudiced interactions: implicit racial bias reduces predictive simulation during joint action with an out-group avatar

“…This modulation might be more likely to emerge during precision grips as this movement is sensitive to high-level cognitive manipulations2728. The analysis of kinematics allowed us to: i) monitor participants' behaviour during the interaction and verify they were on-line adapting to the avatar's movements, thus validating human-avatar interactions as reliable set-ups to simulate human-human joint actions in a controlled environment; ii) measure visuo-motor interference effects through direct investigation of motor behaviour, thus expanding influential studies373839 based on inferences derived from the analysis of response times.…”

Reluctance against the machine: Retrieval of observational stimulus–response episodes in online settings emerges when interacting with a human, but not with a computer partner

“…Social modulations of observing a motion sequence on-screen depicting an irrelevant yet (in-)compatible action are documented for the automatic imitation task (Brass et al, 2001 ; Butler et al, 2016 ; Cracco, Genschow, et al, 2018b ; for an overview, see Cracco et al, 2018a , b ). For instance, individuals imitate others less strongly when they observe actions from a third-person perspective compared with a first-person perspective (Bortoletto et al, 2013 ; Genschow et al, 2013 ; Lamm et al, 2007 ; Vogt et al, 2003 ) or when they face out-group compared with in-group members (Genschow & Schindler, 2016 ; but see Genschow, Westfal, et al, 2021b , for a failed replication of this finding). Similarly, joint Simon effects emerge for situations in which participants believe to observe the action of a human interaction partner seated in an adjacent cubicle (Tsai et al, 2008 ).…”

Neural processes for action observation

“…The congruency effect during action preparation was significant over central motor areas, while the congruency effect during action initiation was significant over right frontal sensors. Bortoletto et al (2013) reported greater ERP amplitudes for congruent versus incongruent actions during action initiation; however, their analysis focused on the 170ms time point. Field intensity values on Figure 5.4 also suggest similar albeit non-significant trends in left occipital regions during action preparation, and at central and frontal regions during action initiation.…”

“…One explanation for these divergent findings is that attentional focus and the relative timing of the observed actions relative to planned or executed actions can modulate early visual responses to the observed actions (Bortoletto et al, 2011(Bortoletto et al, , 2013. In a study by Bortoletto et al (2011), images of congruent or incongruent gestures were presented on the screen while participants were waiting for a "go" cue to initiate an already planned gesture.…”

“…This congruency effect was significant at sensors over the occipital cortex as well as at a central location over the motor cortex. In a follow-up study, the same authors modified the paradigm such that the observed gestures acted as a "go" cue for participants to initiate their own actions (Bortoletto et al, 2013). Furthermore, in this second experiment the attentional focus of the participants was also modulated.…”