Action control while seeing mirror images of one's own movements: Effects of perspective on spatial compatibility

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 63, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1757-1769

  Sutter, Christine ^a   Müsseler, Jochen ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Action effect; Imitation; Multimodal processing; Sensorimotor transformation; Stimulusresponse compatibility

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; BEHAVIOR; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOVEMENT; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956686947     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210903511244     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Gattis, M. (2000). Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 53, 153-164.
2. Bertenthal, B. I., Longo, M. R., & Kosobud, A. (2006). Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 210-225.
3. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
4. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44, 124-143.
5. Bruzzo, A., Borghi, A. M., & Ghirlanda, S. (2008). Hand-object interaction in perspective. Neuroscience Letters, 441, 61-65.
6. Buccino, G., Vogt, S., Ritzl, A., Fink, G. R., Zilles, K., Freund, H.-J., et al. (2004). Neural circuits underlying imitation learning of hand actions: An event-related fMRI study. Neuron, 42, 323-334.
7. Craighero, L., Bello, A., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hand action preparation influences theresponses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia, 40, 492-502.
8. Franck, N., Farrer, C., Georgieff, N., Marie-Cardine, M., Daléry, J., d'Amato, T., et al. (2001). Defective recognition of one's own actions in patients with schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 454-459.
9. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73-99.
10. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention. Psychological Research, 55, 270-279.
11. Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 869-937.
12. Iacoboni, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006). The mirror neuron system and the consequence of its dysfunction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 942-951.
13. Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286, 2526-2528.
14. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.
15. Knoblich, G., & Kircher, T. T. J. (2004). Deceiving oneself about being in control: Conscious detection of changes in visuomotor coupling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 657-666.
16. Koski, L., Iacoboni, M., Dubeau, M.-C., Woods, R. P., & Mazziotta, J. C. (2003). Modulation of cortical activity during different imitative behaviors. Journal of Neurophysiology, 89, 460-471.
17. Kunde, W., Musseler, J., & Heuer, H. (2007). Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors, 49,661-670.
18. Lavender, T., & Hommel, B. (2007). Affect and action: Towards an event-coding account. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 1270-1296.
19. Longo, M. R., & Haggard, P. (2009). Sense of agency primes manual motor esponses. Perception, 38, 69-78.
20. Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2007). Programming tool-use actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 692-704.
21. Mechsner, F., Kerzel, D., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination. Nature, 414, 69-72.
22. Musseler, J. (1999). How independent from action control is perception? An event-coding account for more equally-ranked crosstalks. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Musseler (Eds.), Advances in psychology: Vol. 129. Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events (pp. 121-147). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
23. Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., Arning, K., & Proctor, R. W. (2009). Reversed effects of spatial compatibility in natural scenes. American Journal of Psychology, 122,325-336.
24. Musseler, J., Kunde, W., Gausepohl, D., & Heuer, H. (2008). Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 211-231.
25. Musseler, J., & Sutter, C. (2009). Perceiving one's own movements when using a tool. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 359-365.
26. Nattkemper, D., & Ziessler, M. (2004). Cognitive control of action: The role of action effects. Psychological Research, 68, 71-73.
27. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
28. Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P.L. (2006). Stimulus-response-compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
29. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirrorneuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169-192.
30. Sulzenbruck, S., & Heuer, H. (2009). Functional independence of explicit and implicit motor adjustments. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 145-159.
31. Wapner, S., & Cirillo, L. (1968). Imitation of a model's hand movements: Age changes in transposition of left-right relations. Child Development, 39, 887-894.
32. Wohlschläger, A., Gattis, M., & Bekkering, H. (2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: An instance of the ideomotor principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B, 358, 501-515. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1257.
33. Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2006). Stimulusresponse compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 207-222.