Action co-representation is tuned to other humans

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 20, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 2015-2024

  Tsai, Chia Chin ^a   Kuo, Wen Jui ^a   Hung, Daisy L ^a   Tzeng, Ovid J L ^a  

^a NATIONAL YANG MING UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOTOR SYSTEM; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSORY STIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BRAIN MAPPING; CONTINGENT NEGATIVE VARIATION; DECISION MAKING; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS, P300; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 55949112801     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: 15308898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20144     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Allison, T., Puce, A., & McCarthy, G. (2000). Social perception from visual cues: Role of the STS region. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4.
2. Blakemore, S. J., & Frith, C. (2005). The role of motor contagion in the prediction of action. Neuropsychologia, 43, 260-267.
3. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), 106, 3-22.
4. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschlager, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44, 124-143.
5. de Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750.
6. Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
7. Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., & Hohnsbein, J. (1999). ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), 101, 267-291.
8. Fallgatter, A. J., & Strik, W. K. (1999). The NoGo-anteriorization as a neurophysiological standard-index for cognitive response control. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 32, 233-238.
9. Freitas, A. L., Azizian, A., Leung, H. C., & Squires, N. K. (2007). Resisting recently acted-on cues: Compatibility of Go/NoGo responses to response history modulates (frontal P3) event-related potentials. Psychophysiology, 44, 2-10.
10. Gallagher, H. L., Jack, A. I., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. D. (2002). Imaging the intentional stance in a competitive game. Neuroimage, 16, 814-821.
11. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593-609.
12. Grezes, J., & Decety, J. (2001). Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation, observation, and verb generation of actions: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 12, 1-19.
13. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878.
14. Hsieh, S., & Yu, Y. T. (2003). Exploring the nature of switch cost: Inferences from P300 and the lateralized readiness potentials. Brain Research, Brain Research Protocols, 12, 49-59.
15. Iacoboni, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006). The mirror neuron system and the consequences of its dysfunction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 942-951.
16. Johansson, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 201-211.
17. Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S. J. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13, 522-525.
18. Knoblich, G., & Flach, R. (2001). Predicting the effects of actions: Interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science, 12, 467-472.
19. Knoblich, G., & Jordan, J. S. (2002). The mirror system and joint action. In M. I. Stamenov & V. Gallese (Eds.), Mirror neurons and the evolution of brain and language (pp. 115-124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
20. Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 99-104.
21. Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 38, 557-577.
22. Pfefferbaum, A., Ford, J. M., Weller, B. J., & Kopell, B. S. (1985). ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 60, 423-434.
23. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154.
24. Ragot, R. (1984). Perceptual and motor space representation: An event-related potential study. Psychophysiology, 21, 159-170.
25. Ramnani, N., & Miall, R. C. (2004). A system in the human brain for predicting the action of others. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 85-90.
26. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169-192.
27. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 661-670.
28. Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70-76.
29. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others' actions: Just like one's own? Cognition, 88, B11-B21.
30. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234-1246.
31. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E. (2006). Twin peaks: An ERP study of action planning and control in co-acting individuals. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 859-870.
32. Smulders, F. T., Kenemans, J. L., & Kok, A. (1996). Effects of task variables on measures of the mean onset latency of LRP depend on the scoring method. Psychophysiology, 33, 194-205.
33. 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, 14, 117-120.
34. Tsai, C. C., & Brass, M. (2007). Does the human motor system simulate Pinocchio's actions? Co-acting with a human hand versus a wooden hand in a dyadic interaction. Psychological Science, 18, 1058-1062.
35. Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Jing, J. T., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. (2006). A common coding framework in self-other interaction: Evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 353-362.
36. van Schie, H. T., Mars, R. B., Coles, M. G., & Bekkering, H. (2004). Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 549-554.
37. Verleger, R., Jaskowski, P., & Wascher, E. (2005). Evidence for an integrative role of P3b in linking reaction to perception. Journal of Psychophysiology, 20, 1-17.
38. Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 460-473.