Literature DB >> 20356576

When do we simulate non-human agents? Dissociating communicative and non-communicative actions.

Roman Liepelt1, Wolfgang Prinz, Marcel Brass.   

Abstract

There is strong evidence that we automatically simulate observed behavior in our motor system. Previous research suggests that this simulation process depends on whether we observe a human or a non-human agent. Measuring a motor priming effect, this study investigated the question of whether agent-sensitivity of motor simulation depends on the specific action observed. Participants saw pictures depicting end positions of different actions on a screen. All postures featured either a human or non-human agent. Participants had to produce the matching action with their left or right hand depending on the hand presented on the screen. Three different actions were displayed: a communicative action (emblem), a transitive (goal-directed) action and an intransitive action. We found motor priming effects of similar size for human and non-human agents for transitive and intransitive actions. However, the motor priming effect for communicative actions was present for the human agent, but absent for the non-human agent. These findings suggest that biological tuning of motor simulation is highly action-selective and depends on whether the observed behavior appears to be driven by a reasonable goal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20356576     DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cognition        ISSN: 0010-0277


  24 in total

Review 1.  How does visuomotor priming differ for biological and non-biological stimuli? A review of the evidence.

Authors:  E Gowen; E Poliakoff
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-07

2.  Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the Social Simon paradigm.

Authors:  Roman Liepelt; Dorit Wenke; Rico Fischer
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-02-17

3.  Perceiving nonverbal behavior: neural correlates of processing movement fluency and contingency in dyadic interactions.

Authors:  Alexandra L Georgescu; Bojana Kuzmanovic; Natacha S Santos; Ralf Tepest; Gary Bente; Marc Tittgemeyer; Kai Vogeley
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 4.  Assimilation and contrast: the two sides of specific interference between action and perception.

Authors:  Jan Zwickel; Wolfgang Prinz
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2011-05-10

5.  Fronto-parietal coding of goal-directed actions performed by artificial agents.

Authors:  Aleksandra Kupferberg; Marco Iacoboni; Virginia Flanagin; Markus Huber; Anna Kasparbauer; Thomas Baumgartner; Gregor Hasler; Florian Schmidt; Christoph Borst; Stefan Glasauer
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 5.038

6.  Dynamic emotional expressions do not modulate responses to gestures.

Authors:  Harry Farmer; Raqeeb Mahmood; Samantha E A Gregory; Polina Tishina; Antonia F de C Hamilton
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2020-12-10

7.  Robotic movement preferentially engages the action observation network.

Authors:  Emily S Cross; Roman Liepelt; Antonia F de C Hamilton; Jim Parkinson; Richard Ramsey; Waltraud Stadler; Wolfgang Prinz
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 5.038

8.  The role of the action context in object affordance.

Authors:  Liang Zhao
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2018-04-02

9.  The body knows what it should do: automatic motor compensation for illusory heaviness contagion.

Authors:  Tomohisa Asai; Eriko Sugimori; Yoshihiko Tanno
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-07-13

10.  Pointing hand stimuli induce spatial compatibility effects and effector priming.

Authors:  Akio Nishimura; Chikashi Michimata
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-04-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.