Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 16:1 (2015) ► pp.54–67

When triangles become human

Action co-representation for objects

| Ludwig-Maximilian University München | Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen |
| Technische Universität München |
| Max Planck Institute for Human Development |
| Ghent University |
| Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen |
| Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen |

Until recently, it was assumed that co-representation of others’ actions, an essential part in joint action, is biologically tuned. However, research demonstrated that we also simulate actions of non-biological interaction partners under certain conditions. In the present study, we investigated whether perceived intentionality or perspective taking is the underlying mechanisms of this phenomenon. Participants saw a short video fragment of a non-biological agent (i.e. a triangle) as main character. The movements of this agent were either described as intentional or as unintentional. Furthermore, participants were instructed to either take the perspective of this non-biological agent or not. Results show that perspective taking and perceived intentionality both lead to action co-representation of non-biological actions. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed.

Keywords: Joint Action, Action Co-Representation, Action-Perception Link, Task Sharing, Agency
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants and design
    • 2.2Materials and procedure
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Manipulation check
    • 3.2Social Simon effect
  • 4.General discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.16.1.03mul
References
Appel, M., & Richter, T
(2007) Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 101, 113–134.Google Scholar
Aron, A., Aron, E.N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G
(1991) Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 601, 241–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brass, M., Bekkering, H. & Prinz, W
(2001) Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 1061, 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Böckler, A., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N
(2012) Effects of a coactor’s focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 381, 1404–1415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Böckler, A., & Zwickel, J
(2013) Influences of spontaneous perspective taking on spatial and identity processing of faces. Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience, 81, 735–740. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, J.K., Bonito, J.A., Bengtsson, B., Cederberg, C., Lundeberg, M., & Allspach, L
(2000) Interactivity in human-computer interaction: A study of credibility, understanding, and influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 161, 553–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castelli, F., Happé, F., Frith, U., & Frith, C
(2000) Movement and mind: A functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. Neuroimage, 121, 314–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colzato, L.S., de Bruijn, E., & Hommel, B
(2012a) Up to “me” or up to “us”? The impact of self-construal priming on cognitive self-other integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colzato, L.S., Zech, H., Hommel, B., Verdonschot, R., van den Wildenberg, W., & Hsieh, S
(2012b) Lovingkindness brings lovingkindness: The impact of Buddhism on cognitive self-other integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 191, 541–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cross, E.S., Liepelt, R., de C Hamilton, A.F., Parkinson, J., Ramsey, R., Stadler, W., & Prinz, W
(2012) Robotic movement preferentially engages the action observation network. Human Brain Mapping, 91, 2238–2254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J.A
(2001) The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 331, 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K.C
(2012) Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: A response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 741, 911–929. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L.S., Schütz-Bosback, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R
(2011) How “social“ is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R
(2013) The (not so) Social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 391, 1248–1260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dolk, T., Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Fiehler, K
(2013) Visual experience determines the use of external reference frames in joint action control. PLoS One, 81, e59008. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, H., & Ueda, K
(2010) Interaction with a moving object affects one’s perception of its animacy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 21, 187–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J.T
(2007) On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 1141, 864–886. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazzola, V., Rizzolatti, G., Wicker, B., & Keysers, C
(2007) The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. NeuroImage, 351, 1674–1684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, M.C., & Brock, T.C
(2000) The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 291, 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, M.C., Brock, T.C., & Kaufman, G.F
(2004) Understanding media enjoyment: The role of transportation into narrative worlds. Communication Theory, 141, 311–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C.A
(2010) Sharing a task or sharing a space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 1141, 348–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hard, B.M., Tversky, B., & Lang, D.S
(2006) Making sense of abstract events: Building event schemas. Memory & Cognition, 141, 1221–1253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hommel, B., Colzato, L.S., & van den Wildenberg, W.P.M
(2009) How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 71, 794–798. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilner, J.M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S.J
(2003) An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 131, 522–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liepelt, R., & Brass, M
(2010) Top-down modulation of motor priming by belief about animacy. Experimental Psychology, 571, 221–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liepelt, R., Schneider, J.C., Aichert, D., Wöstmann, N., Dehning, S., Möller, H.J., Riedel, M., Dolk, T., & Ettinger, U
(2012) Action blind: Disturbed self-other integration in Schizophrenia. Neuropsychologia, 501, 3775–3780. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., & Fischer, R
(2013) Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the social simon paradigm. Psychological Research, 771, 240–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, B.C.N., Brass, M., Kühn, S., Tsai, C.-C., Nieuwboer, W., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R.B
(2011a) When Pinocchio acts like a human, a wooden hand becomes embodied. Action co-representation for non-biological agents. Neuropsychologia, 491, 1373–1377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, B.C.N., Kühn, S., van Baaren, R.B., Dotsch, R., Brass, M., & Dijksterhuis, A
(2011b) Perspective taking eliminates differences in co-representation of out-group members’ actions. Experimental Brain Research, 2111, 423–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, B.C.N., van Baaren, R.B., van Someren, D.H., & Dijksterhuis, A
(2014) A present for Pinocchio: On when non-biological agents become real. Social Cognition, 321, 382–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Press, C
(2011) Action observation and robotic agents: Learning and anthropomorphism. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 351, 1410–1418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prinz, W
(1997) Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 91, 129–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramnani, N., & Miall, R.C
(2004) A system in the human brain for predicting the actions of others. Nature Neuroscience, 71, 85–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, R., & Hamilton de, C.A.F
(2010) Triangles have goals too: Understanding action representation in lef aIPS. Neuropsychologia, 481, 2773–2776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samson, D., Apperly, I.A., Braithwaite, J.J., Andrews, B.J., & Bodley Scott, S.E
(2010) Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 361, 1255–1266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E.F., Lang, A., Shin, M., & Bradley, S.D
(2004) Death with a story: How story impacts emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to first-person shooter video games. Human Communication Research, 301, 361–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultz, J., Friston, K.J., O‘Doherty, J., Wolpert, D.M., & Frith, C.D
(2005) Activation in posterior superior temporal sulcus parallels parameter inducing the percept of animacy. Neuron, 451, 625–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G
(2006) Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 101, 70–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W
(2003) Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 81, 11–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stezel, A., Chinellato, E., del Pobil, Á.P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R
(2013) How deeply do we include robotic agents in the self? International Journal of Humanoid robotics, 101, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado Bou, M.A., del Pobil, Á.P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R
(2012) When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: Co-representation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 381, 1073–1077. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stosic, M., Brass, M., van Hoeck, N., Ma, N., & van Overwalle, F
(2014) Understanding simple goal-directed actions of shapes: The role of agency in mirror system activation. NeuroImage, 861, 264–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tai, Y.F., Scherfler, C., Brooks, D.J., Sawamoto, N., & Castiello, U
(2004) The human premotor cortex is ‘mirror’ only for biological actions. Current Biology, 141, 117–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teufel, C., Fletcher, P.C., & Davis, G (2010) Seeing other minds: Attributed mental states influence perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 141, 376–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsai, C.-C., & Brass, M
(2007) Does the human motor system simulates Pinocchio’s actions? Coaction with a human hand versus a wooden hand in a dyadic interaction. Psychological Science, 181, 1058–1062. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsai, C.-C., Kuo, W.-J., Hung, D.L., & Tzeng, O.J.L
(2008) Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 201, 2015–2024. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsai, C.-C., Kuo, W.-J., Jing, J.-T., Hung, D.L., & Tzeng, O.J.L
(2006) A common coding framework in self-other interaction: Evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 1751, 353–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, B., & Hard, B.M
(2009) Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 1101, 124–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, T., Milleville, S.C., & Martin, A
(2007) Understanding animate agents: Distinct roles for the social network and mirror system. Psychological Science, 181, 469–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G
(2005) The case of motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 1311, 460–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwickel, J
(2009) Agency attribution and visuo-spatial perspective taking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 161, 1089–1093. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Mcgeough, Julienne, Thomas Gallagher-Mitchell, Dan Philip Andrew Clark & Neil Harrison
2021. Reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of a Paper- Versus App-Administered Resilience Scale in Scottish Youths: Comparative Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 9:12 ► pp. e11055 ff. DOI logo
Müller, Barbara C. N., Shengnan Chen, Sari R. R. Nijssen, Simone Kühn & Thomas A Stoffregen
2018. How (not) to increase older adults’ tendency to anthropomorphise in serious games. PLOS ONE 13:7 ► pp. e0199948 ff. DOI logo
Müller, Barbara C. N., Xin Gao, Sari R. R. Nijssen & Tom G. E. Damen
2021. I, Robot: How Human Appearance and Mind Attribution Relate to the Perceived Danger of Robots. International Journal of Social Robotics 13:4 ► pp. 691 ff. DOI logo
Nijssen, Sari R.R., Carolina Pletti, Markus Paulus & Barbara C.N. Müller
2021. Does agency matter? Neural processing of robotic movements in 4- and 8-year olds. Neuropsychologia 157 ► pp. 107853 ff. DOI logo
Sangati, Ekaterina, Marc Slors, Barbara C. N. Müller, Iris van Rooij & Sam Gilbert
2021. Joint Simon effect in movement trajectories. PLOS ONE 16:12 ► pp. e0261735 ff. DOI logo
van der Weiden, Anouk, Henk Aarts, Merel Prikken & Neeltje E. M. van Haren
2016. Individual differences in action co-representation: not personal distress or subclinical psychotic experiences but sex composition modulates joint action performance. Experimental Brain Research 234:2 ► pp. 499 ff. DOI logo
van der Weiden, Anouk, Emanuele Porcu & Roman Liepelt
2023. Action prediction modulates self–other integration in joint action. Psychological Research 87:2 ► pp. 537 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 march 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.