Within- and between-nervous-system inhibition of return: Observation is as good as performance

Welsh, Timothy N.; Lyons, James; Weeks, Daniel J.; Anson, J. Greg; Chua, Romeo; Mendoza, Jocelyn; Elliott, Digby

doi:10.3758/bf03194127

Cited by 51 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding appears to be inconsistent with the gaze cueing literature, which reports no IOR at the SOAs typically used in this study, following centrally presented cues (Frischen, Smilek, et al, 2007;Frischen & Tipper, 2004), and therefore with an attentional cueing account of the effect. Welsh et al (2007) also found a significant correlation between within-and between-person inhibition, which underscored the potentially shared mechanism between these two behaviours.…”

Section: Social Inhibition Of Returnmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The importance of controlling for low-level stimuli in the joint IOR paradigm, as demonstrated by Welsh et al (2007), was shown in two further sets of experiments. In the first, Welsh, Ray, Weeks, Dewey, and Elliott (2009) investigated social IOR in populations with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).…”

Section: Social Inhibition Of Returnmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Welsh et al (2005;Welsh et al, 2007;Welsh, Ray, et al, 2009) argued, IOR following another's action may be related to similar exogenous attention shifts that typically precede goal-directed action. As a result, the authors suggest that inhibition may arise following another's observed action due to the corepresentation of observed and performed action.…”

Section: Action Corepresentation and Attention In Social Iormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That social IOR should result from the corepresentation of another's actions may shed light on why the inhibition is observed under the restricted visual conditions employed by Welsh et al (2007;Welsh, Ray, et al, 2009) and Skarratt et al (2010), even when this is inconsistent with stimuli that are typically thought to cause this effect. The role of corepresentation and the MNS in social IOR has received additional support from two sources.…”

Section: Action Corepresentation and Attention In Social Iormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a follow-up study, Welsh et al (2007) again used LCD goggles to determine which components of observed action might subserve inhibition. They found that either the observed culmination or initiation of action were sufficient, to cause IOR.…”

Section: Social Inhibition Of Returnmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite considerable interest in both action perception and social attention over the last 2 decades, there has been surprisingly little investigation concerning how the manual actions of other humans orient visual attention. The present review draws together studies that have measured the orienting of attention, following observation of another's goal-directed action. Our review proposes that, in line with the literature on eye gaze, action is a particularly strong orienting cue for the visual system. However, we additionally suggest that action may orient visual attention using mechanisms, which gaze direction does not (i.e., neural direct mapping and corepresentation). Finally, we review the implications of these gaze-independent mechanisms for the study of attention to action. We suggest that our understanding of attention to action may benefit from being studied in the context of joint action paradigms, where the role of higher level action goals and social factors can be investigated.

show abstract

Section: Social Inhibition Of Returnmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Social Inhibition Of Returnmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Action Corepresentation and Attention In Social Iormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Action Corepresentation and Attention In Social Iormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Inhibition Of Returnmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Joint spatial–temporal association of response codes (STEARC) effect: Mental timelines embodied interpersonally

Ren,

Guo,

Wang

et al. 2023

PsyCh Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A co‐action task was used to explore the effect of social interactions on temporal judgements, in comparison with an individual‐task condition. In Experiment 1, the co‐actors sat either individually (individual condition) or alongside a partner (joint condition) in front of a monitor and then responded to time‐related words (e.g. yesterday, tomorrow). In Experiment 2, co‐actors sat separately in front of two monitors and categorized the words either individually or jointly. Participants' response times to past‐ and future‐related words in the individual conditions of both experiments had no significant difference. However, in the joint conditions, the responses were faster when the past‐time words were mapped toward the participants on the left than when future‐time words were mapped toward them. Our data support the existence of a specific mapping between past‐time–left space and future‐time–right space. This suggests that the two cooperators probably shared a similar mental timeline.

show abstract

The relations between joint action and theory of mind: a neuropsychological analysis

Humphreys

Bedford

2011

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the relations between joint action and Theory of Mind (ToM) in neurological patients with impairments in ToM, in control patients (who passed ToM tasks) and non-lesioned controls. In two experiments, joint action was assessed in a "social Simon" procedure where spatial compatibility effects were tested under two-alternative forced-choice and under go/nogo conditions, which participants performed in isolation or alongside another participant (the joint action condition). In Experiment 1, patients with impaired ToM showed evidence of increased spatial compatibility effects under standard (two-alternative forced-choice) conditions but, unlike the control participants, these effects disappeared in the joint action condition. In Experiment 2, the ToM patients were asked to pay particular attention to their co-actor. With these instructions, ToM patients with lesions of posterior parietal cortex now showed a sustained spatial compatibility effect in the joint action condition, while ToM patients with lesions primarily involving frontal regions showed an initial effect of spatial compatibility that decreased across trials. The data suggest common processes involved in ToM processing and joint action effects, related to either the ability to attend to appropriate social cues (affected in posterior parietal patients) or the ability to recruit sufficient resources to code another's actions (affected in frontal patients).

show abstract

Within- and between-nervous-system inhibition of return: Observation is as good as performance

Cited by 51 publications

References 17 publications

Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting

Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting

Joint spatial–temporal association of response codes (STEARC) effect: Mental timelines embodied interpersonally

The relations between joint action and theory of mind: a neuropsychological analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About