Assimilation and contrast: The two sides of specific interference between action and perception

Psychological Research

Volumn 76, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 171-182

  Zwickel, Jan ^a,b,c   Prinz, Wolfgang ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REVIEW;

ATTENTION; HUMANS; INTENTION; MOVEMENT; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

EID: 84857053221     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0338-3     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. Beets, I. A. M., Rösler, F., & Fiehler, K. (2010). Nonvisual motor learning improves visual motion perception: Evidence from violating the two-thirds power law. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(3), 1612-1624.
2. Beets, I. A. M., 't Hart, B. M., Rösler, F., Henriques, D. Y. P., Einhäuser, W., & Fiehler, K. (2010). Online action-to-perception transfer: Only percept-dependent action affects perception. Vision Research, 50(24), 2633-2641.
3. Bekkering, H., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2002). Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychological Science, 13(4), 370-374.
4. Blaesi, S., & Wilson, M. (2010). The mirror reflects both ways: Action influences perception of others. Brain and Cognition, 72(2), 306-309.
5. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106(1-2), 3-22.
6. Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Seitz, R. J., Zilles, K., Rizzolatti, G., & Freund, H. J. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An FMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13(2), 400-404.
7. Casile, A., & Giese, M. A. (2006). Nonvisual motor training influences biological motion perception. Current Biology, 16(1), 69-74.
8. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893-910.
9. Chua, R., & Weeks, D. J. (1997). Dynamical explorations of compatibility in perception-action coupling. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility, (pp. 373-398). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
10. Craighero, L., Bello, A., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti G. (2002) Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia, 40(5), 492-502.
11. Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Visuomotor priming. Visual Cognition, 5, 109-125.
12. Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1999). Action for perception: A motor-visual attentional effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1673-1692.
13. Decety, J., & Michel, F. (1989). Comparative analysis of actual and mental movement times in two graphic tasks. Brain and Cognition, 11(1), 87-97.
14. Edwards, M. G., Humphreys, G. W., & Castiello, U. (2003). Motor facilitation following action observation: A behavioural study in prehensile action. Brain and Cognition, 53(3), 495-502.
15. Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451-471.
16. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 71(1), 22-29.
17. Fowler, C. A., Galantucci, B., & Saltzman, E. (2003). Motor theories of perception. In M. A. Arbib (Ed.), The handbook of brain theory & neural networks. New York: MIT.
18. Franz, V. H., Gegenfurtner, K. R., Bülthoff, H. H., & Fahle, M. (2000). Grasping visual illusions: No evidence for a dissociation between perception and action. Psychological Science, 11(1), 20-25.
19. Freeman, J. E., & Ellis, J. A. (2003). The representation of delayed intentions: A prospective subject-performed task?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29(5), 976-992.
20. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593-609.
21. Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493-501.
22. Gazzola, V., Rizzolatti, G., Wicker, B., & Keysers, C. (2007). The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. Neuroimage, 35(4), 1674-1684.
23. Gibson, J. J. (Ed.) (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
24. Glover, S. (2002). Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(7), 288-292.
25. Gomi, H., Abekawa, N., & Nishida, S. (2006). Spatiotemporal tuning of rapid interactions between visual-motion analysis and reaching movement. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(20), 5301-5308.
26. Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20-25.
27. Graf, M., Reitzner, B., Corves, C., Casile, A., Giese, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Predicting point-light actions in real-time. Neuroimage, 36(Suppl 2), T22-T32.
28. Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(1), 52-57.
29. Grosjean, M., Shiffrar, M., & Knoblich, G. (2007). Fitts's law holds for action perception. Psychological Science, 18(2), 95-99.
30. Grosjean, M., Zwickel, J., & Prinz, W. (2009). Acting while perceiving: Assimilation precedes contrast. Psychological Research, 73(1), 3-13.
31. Hamilton, A., Wolpert, D., & Frith, U. (2004). Your own action influences how you perceive another person's action. Current Biology, 14(6), 493-498.
32. Hannus, A., Cornelissen, F. W., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2005). Selection-for-action in visual search. Acta Psychologica (Amst), 118(1-2), 171-191.
33. Helbig, H. B., Steinwender, J., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2010). Action observation can prime visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 200(3-4), 251-258.
34. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849-937.
35. Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility: An editor's introduction. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 3-8). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
36. Jacobs, A., & Shiffrar, M. (2005). Walking perception by walking observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 157-169.
37. Kahneman, D., Beatty, J., & Pollack, I. (1967). Perceptual deficit during a mental task. Science, 157(3785), 218-219.
38. Keller, P. E., Knoblich, G., & Repp, B. H. (2007). Pianists duet better when they play with themselves: On the possible role of action simulation in synchronization. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(1), 102-111.
39. Kerzel, D. (2001). Visual short-term memory is influenced by haptic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(4), 1101-1109.
40. Kilner, J. M., de C. Hamilton, A. F., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2007). Interference effect of observed human movement on action is due to velocity profile of biological motion. Social Neuroscience, 2(3-4), 158-166.
41. Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S. J. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13(6), 522-525.
42. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility. A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253-270.
43. Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Brass, M. (2010). When do we simulate non-human agents? Dissociating communicative and non-communicative actions. Cognition, 115(3), 426-434.
44. Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2009). Object manipulation and motion perception: Evidence of an influence of action planning on visual processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(4), 1062-1071.
45. Mahon, B. Z., Milleville, S. C., Negri, G. A. L., Rumiati, R. I., Caramazza, A., & Martin, A. (2007). Action-related properties shape object representations in the ventral stream. Neuron, 55(3), 507-520.
46. Mantas, A., Evdokimidis, I., & Smyrnis, N. (2008). Perception action interaction: The oblique effect in the evolving trajectory of arm pointing movements. Experimental Brain Research, 184(4), 605-616.
47. Miall, R. C., Stanley, J., Todhunter, S., Levick, C., Lindo, S., & Miall, J. D. (2006). Performing hand actions assists the visual discrimination of similar hand postures. Neuropsychologia, 44(6), 966-976.
48. Müsseler, J. (1999). How independent from action control is perception? An event-coding account for more equally-ranked crosstalks. In G. Aschersleben, T. Bachmann, & J. Müsseler (Eds.), Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal events. Advances in psychology (Vol. 129, Chap. 6, pp. 121-147). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
49. Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 861-872.
50. Parsons, L. M. (1987). Imagined spatial transformations of one's hands and feet. Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 178-241.
51. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129-154.
52. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
53. Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioural and Brain Science, 22(3), 341-365; discussion 366-423.
54. Repp, B. H. (2006). Does an auditory distractor sequence affect self-paced tapping? Acta Psychologica, 121(1), 81-107.
55. Repp, B. H., & Knoblich, G. (2007). Action can affect auditory perception. Psychological Science, 18(1), 6-7.
56. Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., Isenhower, R. W., Goodman, J. R. L., & Schmidt, R. C. (2007). Rocking together: Dynamics of intentional and unintentional interpersonal coordination. Human Movement Science, 26(6), 867-891.
57. Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., Edwards, S., Baker, T., & Willson, K. (2003). Seeing the action: Neuropsychological evidence for action-based effects on object selection. Nature Neuroscience, 6(1), 82-89.
58. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (1998). Spatial attention: Mechanisms and theories. In M. Sabourin, F. Craik, & M. Robert (Eds.), Advances in psychological science 2: Biological and cognitive aspects (pp. 171-198). Hove: Psychology.
59. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169-192.
60. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 661-670.
61. Rusconi, E., Kwan, B., Giordano, B. L., Umiltà, C., & Butterworth, B. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The smarc effect. Cognition, 99(2), 113-129.
62. Sanders, A. F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica, 53(1), 61-97.
63. Schneider, W., & Deubel, H. (2002). Selection-for-perception and selection-for-spatial-motor-action are coupled by visual attention: A review of recent findings and new evidence from stimulus-driven saccade control. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action, number 19 in Attention and performance (pp. 609-627). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64. Schubö, A., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Interactions between perception and action in a reaction task with overlapping S-R assignments. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 65(3), 145-157.
65. Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Perceptual resonance: Action-induced modulation of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 349-355.
66. Shiffrar, M., & Freyd, J. J. (1990). Apparent motion of the human body. Psychological Science, 1(4), 257-264.
67. Simon, J. R. (1968). Effect of ear stimulated on reaction time and movement time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(2), 344-346.
68. Stanley, J., Gowen, E., & Miall, R. C. (2007). Effects of agency on movement interference during observation of a moving dot stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(4), 915-926.
69. Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Blinded by headlights. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 65-74.
70. Tipper, S. P., Howard, L. A., & Jackson, S. R. (1997). Selective reaching to grasp: Evidence for distractor interference effects. Visual Cognition, 4(1), 1-38.
71. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830-846.
72. Viviani, P. (2002). Motor competence in the perception of dynamic events: A tutorial. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and performance XIX (Chap. 21, pp. 406-442). New York: Oxford University Press.
73. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88(3), 354-360.
74. Ward, R. (2002). Independence and integration of perception and action: An introduction. Visual Cognition, 9, 385-391.
75. Whitney, D., Westwood, D., & Goodale, M. (2003). The influence of visual motion on fast reaching movements to a stationary object. Nature, 423, 869-873.
76. Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In Attention and performance VIII. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, N. J.
77. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). Orlando: Academic Press.
78. Wilson, M., & Fox, G. (2007). Working memory for language is not special. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 470-473.
79. Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131(3), 460-473.
80. Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role for motor simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1479-1492.
81. Wohlschläger, A. (2000). Visual motion priming by invisible actions. Vision Research, 40(8), 925-930.
82. Wohlschläger, A., & Wohlschläger, A. (1998). Mental and manual rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2), 397-412.
83. Wolpert, D. M., Doya, K., & Kawato, M. (2003). A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 593-602.
84. Wood, J. N. (2007). Visual working memory for observed actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 639-652.
85. Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2007). Seeing while moving: Measuring the online influence of action on perception. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1063-1071.
86. Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2008). A contrast effect between the concurrent production and perception of movement directions. Visual Cognition, 26, 953-978.
87. Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2010a). On interference effects in concurrent perception and action. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 74, 152-171.
88. Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2010b). What part of an action interferes with ongoing perception? Acta Psychologica, 134(3), 403-409.