Literature DB >> 24838557

Strategic communication and behavioral coupling in asymmetric joint action.

Cordula Vesper1, Michael J Richardson.   

Abstract

How is coordination achieved in asymmetric joint actions where co-actors have unequal access to task information? Pairs of participants performed a non-verbal tapping task with the goal of synchronizing taps to different targets. We tested whether 'Leaders' knowing the target locations would support 'Followers' without this information. Experiment 1 showed that Leaders tapped with higher amplitude that also scaled with specific target distance, thereby emphasizing differences between correct targets and possible alternatives. This strategic communication only occurred when Leaders' movements were fully visible, but not when they were partially occluded. Full visual information between co-actors also resulted in higher and more stable behavioral coordination than partial vision. Experiment 2 showed that Leaders' amplitude adaptation facilitated target prediction by independent Observers. We conclude that fully understanding joint action coordination requires both representational (i.e., strategic adaptation) and dynamical systems (i.e., behavioral coupling) accounts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24838557      PMCID: PMC4381276          DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-3982-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  23 in total

1.  Addressees' needs influence speakers' early syntactic choices.

Authors:  Calion B Lockridge; Susan E Brennan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2002-09

2.  The GROOP effect: groups mimic group actions.

Authors:  Jessica Chia-Chin Tsai; Natalie Sebanz; Günther Knoblich
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2010-11-11

3.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.

Authors:  G R Loftus; M E Masson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1994-12

4.  Does the intention to communicate affect action kinematics?

Authors:  Luisa Sartori; Cristina Becchio; Bruno G Bara; Umberto Castiello
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2009-07-24

5.  Kinematics fingerprints of leader and follower role-taking during cooperative joint actions.

Authors:  Lucia Maria Sacheli; Emmanuele Tidoni; Enea Francesco Pavone; Salvatore Maria Aglioti; Matteo Candidi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-03-17       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Coordinating cognition: the costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search.

Authors:  Susan E Brennan; Xin Chen; Christopher A Dickinson; Mark B Neider; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-07-06

7.  When errors are rewarding.

Authors:  Ellen R A de Bruijn; Floris P de Lange; D Yves von Cramon; Markus Ullsperger
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Making oneself predictable: reduced temporal variability facilitates joint action coordination.

Authors:  Cordula Vesper; Robrecht P R D van der Wel; Günther Knoblich; Natalie Sebanz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Coordination dynamics in a socially situated nervous system.

Authors:  Charles A Coey; Manuel Varlet; Michael J Richardson
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Human sensorimotor communication: a theory of signaling in online social interactions.

Authors:  Giovanni Pezzulo; Francesco Donnarumma; Haris Dindo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  34 in total

1.  Interactional leader-follower sensorimotor communication strategies during repetitive joint actions.

Authors:  Matteo Candidi; Arianna Curioni; Francesco Donnarumma; Lucia Maria Sacheli; Giovanni Pezzulo
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2015-09-06       Impact factor: 4.118

2.  Synchronised and complementary coordination mechanisms in an asymmetric joint aiming task.

Authors:  Joshua C Skewes; Lea Skewes; John Michael; Ivana Konvalinka
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-11-02       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Vision adds to haptics when dyads perform a whole-body joint balance task.

Authors:  Eric Eils; Rouwen Cañal-Bruland; Leonie Sieverding; Marc H E de Lussanet; Karen Zentgraf
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Self-organized complementary joint action: Behavioral dynamics of an interpersonal collision-avoidance task.

Authors:  Michael J Richardson; Steven J Harrison; Rachel W Kallen; Ashley Walton; Brian A Eiler; Elliot Saltzman; R C Schmidt
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Social categorization and cooperation in motor joint action: evidence for a joint end-state comfort.

Authors:  Dominik Dötsch; Anna Schubö
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-05-12       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Reaction time coupling in a joint stimulus-response task: A matter of functional actions or likable agents?

Authors:  Zoe Schielen; Julia Verhaegh; Chris Dijkerman; Marnix Naber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  Reproducible Inter-Personal Brain Coupling Measurements in Hyperscanning Settings With functional Near Infra-Red Spectroscopy.

Authors:  Bizzego Andrea; Azhari Atiqah; Esposito Gianluca
Journal:  Neuroinformatics       Date:  2021-10-29

8.  Entrainment and task co-representation effects for discrete and continuous action sequences.

Authors:  Robrecht P R D van der Wel; En Fu
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-12

9.  Automatic imitation of the arm kinematic profile in interacting partners.

Authors:  Alessandro D'Ausilio; Leonardo Badino; Pietro Cipresso; Alice Chirico; Elisabetta Ferrari; Giuseppe Riva; Andrea Gaggioli
Journal:  Cogn Process       Date:  2015-09

10.  Human adults prefer to cooperate even when it is costly.

Authors:  Arianna Curioni; Pavel Voinov; Mathias Allritz; Thomas Wolf; Josep Call; Günther Knoblich
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 5.530

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.