Learning associations between action and perception: Effects of incompatible training on body part and spatial priming

Observation of another person executing an action primes the same action in the observer's motor system. Recent evidence has shown that these priming effects are flexible, where training of new associations, such as making a foot response when viewing a moving hand, can reduce standard action priming effects (Gillmeister, Catmur, Liepelt, Brass, & Heyes, 2008). Previously, these effects were obtained after explicit learning tasks in which the trained action was cued by the content of a visual stimulus. Here we report similar learning processes in an implicit task in which the participant's action is self-selected, and subsequent visual effects are determined by the nature of that action. Importantly, we show that these learning processes are specific to associations between actions and viewed body parts, in that incompatible spatial training did not influence body part or spatial priming effects. Our results are consistent with models of visuomotor learning that place particular emphasis on the repeated experience of watching oneself perform an action.

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

[2]  C. Heyes Causes and consequences of imitation , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  M. Iacoboni Neural mechanisms of imitation , 2005, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[4]  B. Hommel,et al.  Acquisition and generalization of action effects , 2003 .

[5]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Reactions toward the source of stimulation. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  W. Kunde Response priming by supraliminal and subliminal action effects , 2004, Psychological research.

[7]  Marcel Brass,et al.  Experience-based priming of body parts: A study of action imitation , 2008, Brain Research.

[8]  R. Ellis,et al.  On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  C. Heyes,et al.  What Is the Significance of Imitation in Animals , 2000 .

[10]  Hartwig R. Siebner,et al.  Linking Actions and Their Perceivable Consequences in the Human Brain , 2002, NeuroImage.

[11]  Kim-Phuong L Vu,et al.  Influences on the Simon effect of prior practice with spatially incompatible mappings: Transfer within and between horizontal and vertical dimensions , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[12]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  Stimulus-Response Compatibility: An Integrated Perspective , 1990 .

[13]  C. Heyes,et al.  Experience modulates automatic imitation. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[14]  B. Hommel Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding) , 2009, Psychological research.

[15]  Roberto Nicoletti,et al.  Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. , 1990 .

[16]  W. Kunde,et al.  Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  Gregory Hickok,et al.  Eight Problems for the Mirror Neuron Theory of Action Understanding in Monkeys and Humans , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[18]  D. Perrett,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.11 November 2004 Demystifying social cognition: a Hebbian perspective , 2022 .

[19]  Carlo Umiltà,et al.  Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes , 1994, Psychological research.

[20]  S. Tipper,et al.  Implicit action encoding influences personal-trait judgments , 2007, Cognition.

[21]  Caroline Catmur,et al.  Sensorimotor Learning Configures the Human Mirror System , 2007, Current Biology.

[22]  David F. Pick,et al.  Vertical versus horizontal spatial compatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses , 2000, Psychological research.

[23]  A. Meltzoff,et al.  Explaining Facial Imitation: A Theoretical Model. , 1997, Early development & parenting.

[24]  Cecilia Heyes,et al.  Imitation by association , 2005 .

[25]  J. Krakauer,et al.  A computational neuroanatomy for motor control , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

[26]  C. Heyes,et al.  Automatic imitation of intransitive actions , 2008, Brain and Cognition.

[27]  R W Proctor,et al.  Determinants of right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  B. Hommel Spontaneous decay of response-code activation , 1994, Psychological research.

[29]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[30]  B. Hommel,et al.  The microgenesis of action-effect binding , 2009, Psychological research.

[31]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[32]  Bernhard Hommel,et al.  The neural substrate of the ideomotor principle: An event-related fMRI analysis , 2008, NeuroImage.

[33]  R. Ward,et al.  S-R correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation , 2002 .

[34]  M. Zorzi,et al.  The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.