Please Scroll down for Article Social Neuroscience Action Co-representation: the Joint Snarc Effect Action Co-representation: the Joint Snarc Effect

Abstract Traditionally, communication has been defined as the intentional exchange of symbolic information between individuals. In contrast, the mirror system provides a basis for nonsymbolic and nonintentional information exchange between individuals. We believe that understanding the role of the mirror system in joint action has the potential to serve as a bridge between these two domains. The present study investigates one crucial component of joint action: the ability to represent others’ potential actions in the same way as one's own in the absence of perceptual evidence. In two experiments a joint spatial numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect is demonstrated, providing further evidence that individuals form functionally equivalent representations of their own and others’ potential actions. It is shown that numerical (symbolic) stimuli that are mapped onto a spatially arranged internal representation (a mental number line) can activate a co-represented action in the same way as spatial stimuli. This generalizes previous results on co-representation. We discuss the role of the mirror system in co-representation as a basis for shared intentionality and communication.

[1]  W. Prinz.  Perception and Action Planning , 1997 .

[2]  A. Goldman,et al.  Simulationist models of face-based emotion recognition , 2005, Cognition.

[3]  A. Liberman,et al.  On the relation of speech to language , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  S. Dehaene,et al.  The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. , 1993 .

[5]  M. Tomasello,et al.  Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[6]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[7]  Matthew Flatt,et al.  PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers , 1993 .

[8]  W. Prinz,et al.  Representing others' actions: just like one's own? , 2003, Cognition.

[9]  W Fias,et al.  Two routes for the processing of verbal numbers: evidence from the SNARC effect , 2001, Psychological research.

[10]  Michael Tomasello.  CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Culture and Cognitive Development , 2022 .

[11]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. , 1970, Psychological review.

[13]  R. E Passingham,et al.  Activations related to “mirror” and “canonical” neurones in the human brain: an fMRI study , 2003, NeuroImage.

[14]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[15]  Wen-Jui Kuo,et al.  A common coding framework in self–other interaction: evidence from joint action task , 2006, Experimental Brain Research.

[16]  S. Blakemore,et al.  Motor activation prior to observation of a predicted movement , 2004, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  Is it really my turn? An event-related fMRI study of task sharing , 2007, Social neuroscience.

[18]  W. James,et al.  The Principles of Psychology. , 1983 .

[19]  M. Turvey,et al.  The motor theory of speech perception reviewed , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  M. Arbib.  From monkey-like action recognition to human language: An evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics , 2005, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  A unifying view of the basis of social cognition , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  W. Prinz,et al.  How two share a task: corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  K. Priftis,et al.  Brain damage: Neglect disrupts the mental number line , 2002, Nature.

[24]  B. Hommel.  The Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology, 1996 , 49a (3) , 546 571 , 2022 .

[25]  Wen-Jui Kuo,et al.  Action Co-representation is Tuned to Other Humans , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Where Mathematics Comes From , 2000 .

[27]  W. Prinz,et al.  Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. , 2001, Acta psychologica.

[28]  C. Moore,et al.  Intentional relations and social understanding , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[29]  Jérôme Dokic,et al.  From mirror neurons to joint actions , 2006, Cognitive Systems Research.

[30]  G. Knoblich,et al.  The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. , 2005, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  Günther Knoblich,et al.  The mirror system and joint action , 2002 .

[32]  Borís Burle,et al.  Executive control in the Simon effect: an electromyographic and distributional analysis , 2002, Psychological research.

[33]  M. Jeannerod.  TO ACT OR NOT TO ACT : PERSPECTIVES ON THE REPRESENTATION OF ACTIONS , 1999 .

[34]  M. Arbib,et al.  Language within our grasp , 1998, Trends in Neurosciences.

[35]  M. Jeannerod.  The 25th Bartlett Lecture , 1999 .

[36]  G Aschersleben,et al.  Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  G. Knoblich,et al.  Action coordination in groups and individuals: learning anticipatory control. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[38]  Bruno Galantucci,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Emergence of Human Communication Systems , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[39]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Action recognition in the premotor cortex. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[40]  Daniela Mapelli,et al.  The SNARC effect: an instance of the Simon effect? , 2003, Cognition.

[41]  J. Decety,et al.  The power of simulation: Imagining one's own and other's behavior , 2006, Brain Research.

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

[43]  Y. Paulignan,et al.  An Interference Effect of Observed Biological Movement on Action , 2003, Current Biology.

[44]  L. Fogassi,et al.  A Touching Sight SII/PV Activation during the Observation and Experience of Touch , 2004, Neuron.

[45]  J R Simon,et al.  Auditory S-R compatibility: reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[46]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework of perception and action , 2001 .

[47]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  The mirror-neuron system. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

[48]  S. Dehaene,et al.  The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. , 1998 .

[49]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation. , 2000 .

[50]  A. Mukovskiy,et al.  A dynamic model for action understanding and goal-directed imitation , 2006, Brain Research.

[51]  K. Willmes,et al.  The universal SNARC effect: the association between number magnitude and space is amodal. , 2005, Experimental psychology.

[52]  J. O'Doherty,et al.  Empathy for Pain Involves the Affective but not Sensory Components of Pain , 2004, Science.

[53]  M. Pickering,et al.  Why is conversation so easy? , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[54]  Klaus Willmes,et al.  Do Signers Think Differently? the Processing of Number Parity in Deaf Participants , 2004, Cortex.

[55]  J. R. Simon.  The Effects of an Irrelevant Directional CUE on Human Information Processing , 1990 .