Uncovering the connection between artist and audience: Viewing painted brushstrokes evokes corresponding action representations in the observer

Cognition

Volumn 125, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 26-36

  Eric T Taylor, J ^a   Witt, Jessica K ^b   Grimaldi, Phillip J ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PAINTER; PAINTING; PERCEPTION; PERFORMING ARTIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE;

FEMALE; HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; MALE; MOVEMENT; PAINTINGS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84865284002     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.012     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Beilock S.L., Holt L.E. Embodied preference judgments: Can likeability be driven by the motor system?. Psychological Science 2007, 18:51-57.
2. Bradshaw J.L., Bradshaw J.A., Nettleton N.C. Movement initiation and control: Abduction, adduction and locus of limb. Neuropsychologia 1988, 26:701-709.
3. Freedberg D., Gallese V. Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Science 2007, 11(5):197-203.
4. Gallese V. Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2005, 4:23-48.
5. Hommel B., Musseler J., Aschersleben G., Prinz W. The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2001, 24:849-937.
6. Jeannerod M. Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage 2001, 14:S103-S109.
7. Keulan R.F., Adam J.J., Fischer M.H., Kuipers H., Jolles J. Distractor interference in selective reaching: Effects of hemispace, movement direction, and type of movement. Cortex 2007, 43:531-541.
8. Kilner J.M., Paulignan Y., Blakemore S.J. interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology 2003, 13:522-525.
9. Knoblich G., Sebanz N. The social nature of perception and action. Current Direction is Psychological Science 2006, 15:99-104.
10. Knoblich G., Seigerschmidt E., Flach R., Prinz W. Authorship effects in the prediction of handwriting strokes: Evidence for action simulation during perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2002, 55A(3):1027-1046.
11. Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., Osman A. Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review 1990, 97:253-270.
12. Kubovy M. The psychology of perspective and Renaissance art 1986, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
13. Longcamp M., Anton J.-L., Roth M., Velay J.-L. Visual presentation of single letters activates a premotor area involved in writing. NeuroImage 2003, 19:1492-1500.
14. Longcamp M., Anton J.-L., Roth M., Velay J.-L. Premotor activations in response to visually presented single letters depend on the hand used to write: A study on left-handers. Neuropsychologia 2005, 43:1801-1809.
15. McManus I.C., Cheema B., Stoker J. The aesthetics of visual composition: A study of Mondrian. Empirical Studies of the Arts 1993, 11:83-94.
16. Michaels C.F. S-R compatibility between response position and destination of apparent motion: Evidence of the detection of affordances. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Performance and Perception 1988, 14:231-240.
17. Proctor R.W., Vu K.L. Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application 2006, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
18. Proctor R.W., Van Zandt T., Lu C., Weeks D.J. Stimulus-response compatibility for moving stimuli: Perception of affordances or spatial coding?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Performance and Perception 1993, 19:81-91.
19. Ramachandran V.S., Hirstein W. The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1999, 6:15-51.
20. Rosenberg H. The tradition of the new 1960, Horizon Press, New York, NY.
21. Solso R.L. Cognition and the visual arts 1996, The MIT Press, Boston, MA.
22. Wilson M., Knoblich G. The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin 2005, 131:460-473.
23. Zeki S. Inner vision: An exploration of art and the brain 1999, Oxford University Press.