Literature DB >> 36008626

Reaction Time "Mismatch Costs" Change with the Likelihood of Stimulus-Response Compatibility.

Megan E J Campbell1,2,3, Chase S Sherwell4, Ross Cunnington5, Scott Brown6, Michael Breakspear6,7,8.   

Abstract

Dyadic interactions require dynamic correspondence between one's own movements and those of the other agent. This mapping is largely viewed as imitative, with the behavioural hallmark being a reaction-time cost for mismatched actions. Yet the complex motor patterns humans enact together extend beyond direct-matching, varying adaptively between imitation, complementary movements, and counter-imitation. Optimal behaviour requires an agent to predict not only what is likely to be observed but also how that observed action will relate to their own motor planning. In 28 healthy adults, we examined imitation and counter-imitation in a task that varied the likelihood of stimulus-response congruence from highly predictable, to moderately predictable, to unpredictable. To gain mechanistic insights into the statistical learning of stimulus-response compatibility, we compared two computational models of behaviour: (1) a classic fixed learning-rate model (Rescorla-Wagner reinforcement [RW]) and (2) a hierarchical model of perceptual-behavioural processes in which the learning rate adapts to the inferred environmental volatility (hierarchical Gaussian filter [HGF]). Though more complex and hence penalized by model selection, the HGF provided a more likely model of the participants' behaviour. Matching motor responses were only primed (faster) in the most experimentally volatile context. This bias was reversed so that mismatched actions were primed when beliefs about volatility were lower. Inferential statistics indicated that matching responses were only primed in unpredictable contexts when stimuli-response congruence was at 50:50 chance. Outside of these unpredictable blocks the classic stimulus-response compatibility effect was reversed: Incongruent responses were faster than congruent ones. We show that hierarchical Bayesian learning of environmental statistics may underlie response priming during dyadic interactions.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian active inference; Counter-imitation; Heirachical Gaussian filter; Imitation; Learning; Predictive coding; Reaction time; Rescorla–Wagner

Year:  2022        PMID: 36008626     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-022-02161-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  50 in total

1.  Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues.

Authors:  M Brass; H Bekkering; A Wohlschläger; W Prinz
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 2.310

2.  The inhibition of imitative response tendencies.

Authors:  M Brass; S Zysset; D Y von Cramon
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 6.556

3.  Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus-response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities.

Authors:  Ty W Boyer; Matthew R Longo; Bennett I Bertenthal
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2012-02-09

4.  Inhibition of imitative behaviour and social cognition.

Authors:  Marcel Brass; Perrine Ruby; Stephanie Spengler
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-08-27       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

6.  Eliminating mirror responses by instructions.

Authors:  Lara Bardi; Carsten Bundt; Wim Notebaert; Marcel Brass
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 4.027

7.  Heartfelt imitation: high interoceptive awareness is linked to greater automatic imitation.

Authors:  Vivien Ainley; Marcel Brass; Manos Tsakiris
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 3.139

8.  Short-term physical training enhances mirror system activation to action observation.

Authors:  Victoria E A Brunsdon; Elisabeth E F Bradford; Laura Smith; Heather J Ferguson
Journal:  Soc Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 2.083

Review 9.  Predictions not commands: active inference in the motor system.

Authors:  Rick A Adams; Stewart Shipp; Karl J Friston
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 3.270

10.  Learning the value of information in an uncertain world.

Authors:  Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Mark E Walton; Matthew F S Rushworth
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2007-08-05       Impact factor: 24.884

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.