Cargando…

Evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action

What mechanisms distinguish interactive from non-interactive actions? To answer this question we tested participants while they took turns playing music with a virtual partner: in the interactive joint action condition, the participants played a melody together with their partner by grasping (C note...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sacheli, Lucia Maria, Arcangeli, Elisa, Paulesu, Eraldo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5864721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29567946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23275-9
_version_ 1783308539591131136
author Sacheli, Lucia Maria
Arcangeli, Elisa
Paulesu, Eraldo
author_facet Sacheli, Lucia Maria
Arcangeli, Elisa
Paulesu, Eraldo
author_sort Sacheli, Lucia Maria
collection PubMed
description What mechanisms distinguish interactive from non-interactive actions? To answer this question we tested participants while they took turns playing music with a virtual partner: in the interactive joint action condition, the participants played a melody together with their partner by grasping (C note) or pressing (G note) a cube-shaped instrument, alternating in playing one note each. In the non-interactive control condition, players’ behavior was not guided by a shared melody, so that the partner’s actions and notes were irrelevant to the participant. In both conditions, the participant’s and partner’s actions were physically congruent (e.g., grasp-grasp) or incongruent (e.g., grasp-point), and the partner’s association between actions and notes was coherent with the participant’s or reversed. Performance in the non-interactive condition was only affected by physical incongruence, whereas joint action was only affected when the partner’s action-note associations were reversed. This shows that task interactivity shapes the sensorimotor coding of others’ behaviors, and that joint action is based on active prediction of the partner’s action effects rather than on passive action imitation. We suggest that such predictions are based on Dyadic Motor Plans that represent both the agent’s and the partner’s contributions to the interaction goal, like playing a melody together.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5864721
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58647212018-03-27 Evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action Sacheli, Lucia Maria Arcangeli, Elisa Paulesu, Eraldo Sci Rep Article What mechanisms distinguish interactive from non-interactive actions? To answer this question we tested participants while they took turns playing music with a virtual partner: in the interactive joint action condition, the participants played a melody together with their partner by grasping (C note) or pressing (G note) a cube-shaped instrument, alternating in playing one note each. In the non-interactive control condition, players’ behavior was not guided by a shared melody, so that the partner’s actions and notes were irrelevant to the participant. In both conditions, the participant’s and partner’s actions were physically congruent (e.g., grasp-grasp) or incongruent (e.g., grasp-point), and the partner’s association between actions and notes was coherent with the participant’s or reversed. Performance in the non-interactive condition was only affected by physical incongruence, whereas joint action was only affected when the partner’s action-note associations were reversed. This shows that task interactivity shapes the sensorimotor coding of others’ behaviors, and that joint action is based on active prediction of the partner’s action effects rather than on passive action imitation. We suggest that such predictions are based on Dyadic Motor Plans that represent both the agent’s and the partner’s contributions to the interaction goal, like playing a melody together. Nature Publishing Group UK 2018-03-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5864721/ /pubmed/29567946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23275-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Sacheli, Lucia Maria
Arcangeli, Elisa
Paulesu, Eraldo
Evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action
title Evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action
title_full Evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action
title_fullStr Evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action
title_full_unstemmed Evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action
title_short Evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action
title_sort evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5864721/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29567946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23275-9
work_keys_str_mv AT sacheliluciamaria evidenceforadyadicmotorplaninjointaction
AT arcangelielisa evidenceforadyadicmotorplaninjointaction
AT paulesueraldo evidenceforadyadicmotorplaninjointaction