Embodied social interaction constitutes social cognition in Pairs of humans: A minimalist virtual reality experiment

Scientific Reports

Volumn 4, Issue , 2014, Pages

  Froese, Tom ^a,b   Iizuka, Hiroyuki ^c,d   Ikegami, Takashi ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

^c OSAKA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COGNITION; COMPUTER INTERFACE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84899866837     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep03672     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Thompson, E. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007).
2. Clark, A. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2008).
3. Noë, A. Action in Perception. (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004).
4. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991).
5. Engel, A. K., Maye, A., Kurthen, M. & König, P. Where's the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 17-209 (2013).
6. Kelso, J. A. S. Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior. (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995).
7. Beer, R. D. Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 4-99 (2000).
8. Lutz, A., Lachaux, J.-P., Martinerie, J. & Varela, F. J. Guiding the study of brain dynamics by using first-person data: synchrony patterns correlate with ongoing conscious states during a simple visual task. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99, 99-1591 (2002).
9. Reddy, V. How Infants Know Minds. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008).
10. Gallagher, S. How the Body Shapes the Mind. (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2005).
11. Hutto, D. D., Herschbach, M. & Southgate, V. Social cognition: mindreading and alternatives. Rev. Phil. Psych. 2, 2-395 (2011).
12. Schilbach, L. et al. Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 36-462 (2013).
13. Kawasaki, M., Yamada, Y., Ushiku, Y., Miyauchi, E. & Yamaguchi, Y. Inter-brain synchronization during coordination of speech rhythm in human-to-human social interaction. Sci. Rep. 3, doi:10.1038/srep 01692 (2013).
14. Dumas, G., Nadel, J., Soussignan, R., Martinerie, J. & Garnero, L. Inter-brain synchronization during social interaction. PLoS ONE 5, e12166, doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0012166 (2010).
15. De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E. A. & Gallagher, S. Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends Cogn. Sci. 14, 14-447 (2010).
16. Goldman, A. & De Vignemont, F. Is social cognition embodied? Trends Cogn. Sci. 13, 13-159 (2009).
17. Gallotti, M. & Frith, C. D. Social cognition in the we-mode. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 17-165 (2013).
18. Gallese, V. & Sinigaglia, C. What is so special about embodied simulation? Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 15-519 (2011).
19. Froese, T. & Gallagher, S. Getting interaction theory (IT) together: integrating developmental, phenomenological, enactive, and dynamical approaches to social interaction. Interact. Stud. 13, 13-468 (2012).
20. Schilbach, L. A second-person approach to other minds. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 449 (2010).
21. Krueger, J. Extended cognition and the space of social interaction. Conscious. Cogn. 20, 20-657 (2011).
22. Froese, T. & Fuchs, T. The extended body: a case study in the neurophenomenology of social interaction. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 11, 11-235 (2012).
23. Froese, T., Gershenson, C. & Rosenblueth, D. A. The dynamically extended mind: a minimal modeling case study. 2013 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation. 1419-1426 (IEEE Press, 2013).
24. Auvray, M. & Rohde, M. Perceptual crossing: the simplest online paradigm. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012. 00181 (2012).
25. Auvray, M., Lenay, C. & Stewart, J. Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas Psychol. 27, 27-47 (2009).
26. Murray, L. & Trevarthen, C. Emotional regulations of interactions between twomonth-olds and their mothers. Social Perception in Infants. Field, T. M. & Fox, N. A. (eds.) 177-197 (Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, 1985).
27. Nadel, J., Carchon, I., Kervella, C., Marcelli, D. & Réserbat-Plantey, D. Expectancies for social contingency in 2-month-olds. Dev. Sci. 2, 2-173 (1999).
28. Soussignan, R., Nadel, J., Canet, P. & Gerardin, P. Sensitivity to social contingency and positive emotion in 2-month-olds. Infancy 10, 10-144 (2006).
29. Lenay, C., Stewart, J., Rohde, M. & Ali Amar, A. 'You never fail to surprise me': the hallmark of the other: experimental study and simulations of perceptual crossing. Interact. Stud. 12, 12-396 (2011).
30. Lenay, C. & Stewart, J. Minimalist approach to perceptual interactions. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012. 00098 (2012).
31. Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M. & Iizuka, H. Sensitivity to social contingency or stability of interaction? Modelling the dynamics of perceptual crossing. New Ideas Psychol. 26, 26-294 (2008).
32. Froese, T. & Di Paolo, E. A. Modeling social interaction as perceptual crossing: an investigation into the dynamics of the interaction process. Connect. Sci. 22, 22-68 (2010).
33. Froese, T., Lenay, C. & Ikegami, T. Imitation by social interaction? Analysis of a minimal agent-based model of the correspondence problem. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012. 00202 (2012).
34. Herschbach, M. On the role of social interaction in social cognition: a mechanistic alternative to enactivism. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 11, 11-486 (2012).
35. Michael, J. & Overgaard, S. Interaction and social cognition: a comment on Auvray et al.'s perceptual crossing paradigm. New Ideas Psychol. 30, 30-299 (2012).
36. Michael, J. Interactionism and mindreading. Rev. Phil. Psych. 2, 2-578 (2011).
37. Overgaard, S. & Michael, J. The interactive turn in social cognition research: a critique. Phil. Psych. doi:10.1080/09515089.2013.827109 (in press).
38. Froese, T. & Di Paolo, E. A. The enactive approach: theoretical sketches from cell to society. Pragm. Cogn. 19, 19-36 (2011).
39. Froese, T. & Di Paolo, E. A. Toward minimally social behavior: social psychology meets evolutionary robotics. Advances in Artificial Life: Darwin Meets von Neumann. 10th European Conference, ECAL 2009. Kampis, G., Karsai, I. & Szathmáry, E. (eds.) 426-433 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2011).
40. Ramsoy, T. Z. & Overgaard, M. Introspection and subliminal perception. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 3, 3-23 (2004).
41. Sandberg, K., Timmermans, B., Overgaard, M. & Cleeremans, A. Measuring consciousness: is one measure better than the other? Conscious. Cogn. 19, 19-1078 (2010).
42. Zahavi, D. Beyond empathy: phenomenological approaches to intersubjectivity. J. Conscious. Stud. 8, 8-167 (2001).
43. Decety, J. & Jackson, P. L. A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. 15, 15-58 (2006).
44. Dienes, Z. & Seth, A. K. Gambling on the unconscious: a comparison of wagering and confidence ratings as measures of awareness in an artificial grammar task. Conscious. Cogn. 19, 19-681 (2010).
45. Iizuka, H., Marocco, D., Ando, H. & Maeda, T. Experimental study on coevolution of categorical perception and communication systems in humans. Psychol. Res. 77, 77-63 (2013).
46. Iizuka, H., Ando, H. & Maeda, T. The anticipation of human behavior using "parasitic humanoid" Human-Computer Interaction: Ambient, Ubiquitous and Intelligent Interaction. Jacko, J. A. (ed.) 284-293 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 2009).
47. Rohde, M., Di Luca, M. & Ernst, M. O. The rubber hand illusion: feeling of ownership and proprioceptive drift do not go hand in hand. PLoS ONE 6, e21659, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0021659 (2011).
48. Froese, T., Gould, C. & Barrett, A. Re-viewing from within: a commentary on firstand second-person methods in the science of consciousness. Construct. Found. 6, 6-269 (2011).
49. De Jaegher, H. & Di Paolo, E. A. Making sense in participation: An enactive approach to social cognition. Enacting Intersubjectivity: A Cognitive and Social Perspective on the Study of Interactions. Morganti, F., Carassa, A. & Riva, G. (eds.) 33-47 (IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2008).
50. McGann, M. & De Jaegher, H. Self-other contingencies: enacting social perception. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 8, 8-437 (2009).
51. De Jaegher, H. & Di Paolo, E. A. Participatory sense-making: an enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 6, 6-507 (2007).
52. Adams, F. & Aizawa, K. The Bounds of Cognition. (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK, 2008).
53. Cosmelli, D. & Thompson, E. Embodiment or envatment? Reflections on the bodily basis of consciousness. Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science. Stewart, J., Gapenne, O. & Di Paolo, E. A. (eds.) 361-385 (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2010).
54. Clark, A. Spreading the joy? Why the machinery of consciousness is (probably) still in the head. Mind 118, 118-993 (2009).