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

When two or more people aim to produce joint action outcomes they need to coordinate their individual actions in space and time. Successful joint action performance has been reported to depend, among others, on visual and somatosensory information provided to the joint actors. This study investigated whether and how the systematic manipulation of visual information modulates real-time joint action when dyads performed a whole-body joint balance task. To this end, we introduced the Joint Action Board (JAB) where partners guided a ball through a maze towards a virtual hole by jointly shifting their weight on the board under three visual conditions: (1) the Follower had neither visual access to the Leader nor to the maze; (2) the Follower had no visual access to the maze but to the Leader; (3) the Follower had full visual access to both the Leader and to the maze. Joint action performance was measured as completion time of the maze task; interpersonal coordination was examined by means of kinematic analyses of both partners’ motor behaviour. We predicted that systematically adding visual to the available haptic information would result in a significant increase in joint performance and that Leaders would change their coordination behavior depending on these conditions. Results showed that adding visual information to haptics led to an increase in joint action performance in a Leader–Follower relationship in a joint balance task. In addition, interpersonal coordination behavior (i.e. sway range of motion, time-lag between partner’s bodies etc.) changed dependent on the provided visual information between partners in the jointly executed task.

[1]  付伶俐 打磨Using Language,倡导新理念 , 2014 .

[2]  Michael J. Richardson,et al.  Dynamics of Interpersonal Coordination , 2008 .

[3]  N. Sebanz,et al.  Our actions in my mind: Motor imagery of joint action , 2014, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  M. van der Schoot,et al.  The developmental onset of symbolic approximation: beyond nonsymbolic representations, the language of numbers matters , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[5]  Kristin L. Sainani,et al.  Bonferroni, Holm, and Hochberg Corrections: Fun Names, Serious Changes to P Values , 2014, PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation.

[6]  N. Sebanz,et al.  Psychological research on joint action: Theory and data , 2011 .

[7]  U. Castiello,et al.  Does the intention to communicate affect action kinematics? , 2009, Consciousness and Cognition.

[8]  Karen Zentgraf,et al.  Simulation during observation of human actions – Theories, empirical studies, applications , 2011, Vision Research.

[9]  A. Wing,et al.  Optimal feedback correction in string quartet synchronization , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[10]  Marco Santello,et al.  On the Role of Physical Interaction on Performance of Object Manipulation by Dyads , 2017, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[11]  A. Mizuno,et al.  A change of the leading player in flow Visualization technique , 2006, J. Vis..

[12]  G. Pezzulo,et al.  Human Sensorimotor Communication: A Theory of Signaling in Online Social Interactions , 2013, PloS one.

[13]  Robrecht P R D van der Wel,et al.  Let the force be with us: dyads exploit haptic coupling for coordination. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  Sebastian Wallot,et al.  Beyond Synchrony: Joint Action in a Complex Production Task Reveals Beneficial Effects of Decreased Interpersonal Synchrony , 2016, PloS one.

[15]  Michael J. Richardson,et al.  Strategic communication and behavioral coupling in asymmetric joint action , 2014, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  The pragmatic turn : toward action-oriented views in cognitive science , 2016 .

[17]  Jörn Diedrichsen,et al.  Integration of vision and haptics during tool use. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[18]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Joint action: bodies and minds moving together , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  M. Ernst,et al.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion , 2002, Nature.

[20]  Alan M. Wing,et al.  Perception of string quartet synchronization , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[21]  C. Frith,et al.  Follow you, Follow me: Continuous Mutual Prediction and Adaptation in Joint Tapping , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding , 2004 .

[23]  Giovanni Pezzulo,et al.  Intentional strategies that make co-actors more predictable: the case of signaling. , 2013 .

[24]  Jurjen Bosga,et al.  Intra- and interpersonal movement coordination in jointly moving a rocking board. , 2010, Motor control.

[25]  Christopher A. Dickinson,et al.  Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search , 2008, Cognition.

[26]  Barbara Anne Dosher,et al.  Task precision at transfer determines specificity of perceptual learning. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[27]  C. Gonzalez,et al.  The contributions of vision and haptics to reaching and grasping , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[28]  A. Roepstorff,et al.  The two-brain approach: how can mutually interacting brains teach us something about social interaction? , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[29]  C. Palmer,et al.  Synchronization of Timing and Motion 435 , 2022 .

[30]  Kevin Shockley,et al.  Joint action in a cooperative precision task: nested processes of intrapersonal and interpersonal coordination , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[31]  Robyn Carston Herbert H. Clark, Using language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Pp. xi+432. , 1999 .

[32]  K. Vogeley,et al.  Toward a second-person neuroscience 1 , 2013, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[33]  Michael J. Richardson,et al.  Rocking together: dynamics of intentional and unintentional interpersonal coordination. , 2007, Human movement science.

[34]  M. Candidi,et al.  Kinematics fingerprints of leader and follower role-taking during cooperative joint actions , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  Vassilia Hatzitaki,et al.  Somatosensory driven interpersonal synchrony during rhythmic sway. , 2012, Human movement science.

[36]  Ryan Ferguson,et al.  Consequences of joint action: Entanglement with your partner. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[37]  R. E Passingham,et al.  Inferring false beliefs from the actions of oneself and others: an fMRI study , 2004, NeuroImage.

[38]  Cordula Vesper,et al.  Making oneself predictable: reduced temporal variability facilitates joint action coordination , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[39]  W. Prinz,et al.  Perceptual resonance: action-induced modulation of perception , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[40]  N. Sebanz,et al.  The role of shared visual information for joint action coordination , 2016, Cognition.

[41]  Lars Kai Frontal alpha oscillations distinguish leaders from followers: Multivariate decoding of mutually interacting brains , 2016 .

[42]  J. Decety,et al.  From the perception of action to the understanding of intention , 2001, Nature reviews. Neuroscience.

[43]  Lucia M. Sacheli,et al.  Social cues to joint actions: the role of shared goals , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[44]  Cordula Vesper,et al.  A minimal architecture for joint action , 2010, Neural Networks.