Observing human movements helps decoding environmental forces

Vision of human actions can affect several features of visual motion processing, as well as the motor responses of the observer. Here, we tested the hypothesis that action observation helps decoding environmental forces during the interception of a decelerating target within a brief time window, a task intrinsically very difficult. We employed a factorial design to evaluate the effects of scene orientation (normal or inverted) and target gravity (normal or inverted). Button-press triggered the motion of a bullet, a piston, or a human arm. We found that the timing errors were smaller for upright scenes irrespective of gravity direction in the Bullet group, while the errors were smaller for the standard condition of normal scene and gravity in the Piston group. In the Arm group, instead, performance was better when the directions of scene and target gravity were concordant, irrespective of whether both were upright or inverted. These results suggest that the default viewer-centered reference frame is used with inanimate scenes, such as those of the Bullet and Piston protocols. Instead, the presence of biological movements in animate scenes (as in the Arm protocol) may help processing target kinematics under the ecological conditions of coherence between scene and target gravity directions.

[1]  N. Hodges,et al.  On the dynamic information underlying visual anticipation skill , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[3]  S. Gallagher Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  F. Lacquaniti,et al.  Fast adaptation of the internal model of gravity for manual interceptions: evidence for event-dependent learning. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  Andrea Tacchino,et al.  Spontaneous movement tempo is influenced by observation of rhythmical actions , 2009, Brain Research Bulletin.

[6]  P. Viviani,et al.  Perceptual asynchronies for biological and non-biological visual events , 2004, Vision Research.

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

[8]  R. Blake,et al.  Perception of human motion. , 2007, Annual review of psychology.

[9]  F. Lacquaniti,et al.  Tempo rubato: Animacy speeds up time in the brain , 2011 .

[10]  Bart Krekelberg,et al.  Speed perception during acceleration and deceleration. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[11]  Winfried Ilg,et al.  Spatiotemporal Tuning of the Facilitation of Biological Motion Perception by Concurrent Motor Execution , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  Vincenzo Maffei,et al.  Vestibular nuclei and cerebellum put visual gravitational motion in context. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[13]  B. Hommel Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  V. Stone,et al.  The Body-Inversion Effect , 2003, Psychological science.

[15]  Thomas Metzinger,et al.  The Subjectivity of Subjective Experience: A Representationalist Analysis of the First-Person Perspective. , 2000 .

[16]  R. Blake,et al.  What constitutes an efficient reference frame for vision? , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  H. Bekkering,et al.  The mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared with imitative action , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[18]  Natalie Sebanz,et al.  Prediction in Joint Action: What, When, and Where , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[19]  A. Terry Bahill,et al.  Predicting a Baseball’s Path , 2005 .

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

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

[22]  Maggie Shiffrar,et al.  Rolling Perception without Rolling Motion , 2008, Perception.

[23]  Francesco Lacquaniti,et al.  Anticipating the effects of gravity when intercepting moving objects: differentiating up and down based on nonvisual cues. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  Nikolaus F Troje,et al.  Reference Frames for Orientation Anisotropies in Face Recognition and Biological-Motion Perception , 2003, Perception.

[25]  Daniel Jokisch,et al.  Biological motion as a cue for the perception of size. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[26]  G. Fink,et al.  Neural correlates of the first-person-perspective , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[27]  L. Carlton,et al.  The Use of Anticipatory Visual Cues by Highly Skilled Tennis Players , 2005, Journal of motor behavior.

[28]  B. Abernethy Expertise, Visual Search, and Information Pick-up in Squash , 1990, Perception.

[29]  Vincenzo Maffei,et al.  Extrapolation of vertical target motion through a brief visual occlusion , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[30]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  On interference effects in concurrent perception and action , 2009, Psychological research.

[31]  Kiyoshi Fujimoto,et al.  Motion Induction from Biological Motion , 2003, Perception.

[32]  Daeyeol Lee,et al.  Manual interception of moving targets I. Performance and movement initiation , 1997, Experimental Brain Research.

[33]  Ada Kritikos,et al.  Placing actions in context: motor facilitation following observation of identical and non-identical manual acts , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[34]  Katsumi Watanabe,et al.  Behavioral speed contagion: Automatic modulation of movement timing by observation of body movements , 2008, Cognition.

[35]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[36]  Luciano Fadiga,et al.  Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[37]  Peter Neri,et al.  Meaningful interactions can enhance visual discrimination of human agents , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[38]  Francesco Lacquaniti,et al.  Coherence of structural visual cues and pictorial gravity paves the way for interceptive actions. , 2011, Journal of vision.