Assimilation and contrast: the two sides of specific interference between action and perception
Tóm tắt
Perception and action have long been treated as relatively independent and serial processes. More recent views, however, consider perception and action as relying on a common set of processes and/or representations. The present paper will focus on a variety of specific (content-based) perception–action interactions that have been taken as support for such views. In particular, the following aspects will be considered: direction of influence (perception on action vs. action on perception), temporal type (concurrent vs. non-concurrent), functional relation (related/unrelated), and type of movements (biological vs. non-biological). Different extant models of the perception-action interface are discussed and a classification schema proposed that tries to explain when contrast and when assimilation effects will arise.
Tài liệu tham khảo
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.
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.
Bekkering, H., & Neggers, S. F. W. (2002). Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychological Science, 13(4), 370–374.
Blaesi, S., & Wilson, M. (2010). The mirror reflects both ways: Action influences perception of others. Brain and Cognition, 72(2), 306–309.
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106(1–2), 3–22.
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.
Casile, A., & Giese, M. A. (2006). Nonvisual motor training influences biological motion perception. Current Biology, 16(1), 69–74.
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.
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.
Craighero, L., Bello, A., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti G. (2002) Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia, 40(5), 492–502.
Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., & Umiltà, C. (1998). Visuomotor priming. Visual Cognition, 5, 109–125.
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.
Decety, J., & Michel, F. (1989). Comparative analysis of actual and mental movement times in two graphic tasks. Brain and Cognition, 11(1), 87–97.
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.
Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493–501.
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.
Gibson, J. J. (Ed.) (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Glover, S. (2002). Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(7), 288–292.
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.
Goodale, M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences, 15(1), 20–25.
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.
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.
Grosjean, M., Shiffrar, M., & Knoblich, G. (2007). Fitts’s law holds for action perception. Psychological Science, 18(2), 95–99.
Grosjean, M., Zwickel, J., & Prinz, W. (2009). Acting while perceiving: Assimilation precedes contrast. Psychological Research, 73(1), 3–13.
Hamilton, A., Wolpert, D., & Frith, U. (2004). Your own action influences how you perceive another person’s action. Current Biology, 14(6), 493–498.
Hannus, A., Cornelissen, F. W., Lindemann, O., & Bekkering, H. (2005). Selection-for-action in visual search. Acta Psychologica (Amst), 118(1–2), 171–191.
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.
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.
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.
Jacobs, A., & Shiffrar, M. (2005). Walking perception by walking observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 157–169.
Kahneman, D., Beatty, J., & Pollack, I. (1967). Perceptual deficit during a mental task. Science, 157(3785), 218–219.
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.
Kerzel, D. (2001). Visual short-term memory is influenced by haptic perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(4), 1101–1109.
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.
Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S. J. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13(6), 522–525.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 861–872.
Parsons, L. M. (1987). Imagined spatial transformations of one’s hands and feet. Cognitive Psychology, 19(2), 178–241.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129–154.
Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.) (1990). Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
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.
Repp, B. H. (2006). Does an auditory distractor sequence affect self-paced tapping? Acta Psychologica, 121(1), 81–107.
Repp, B. H., & Knoblich, G. (2007). Action can affect auditory perception. Psychological Science, 18(1), 6–7.
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.
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.
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.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.
Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 661–670.
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.
Sanders, A. F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica, 53(1), 61–97.
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.
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.
Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Perceptual resonance: Action-induced modulation of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 349–355.
Shiffrar, M., & Freyd, J. J. (1990). Apparent motion of the human body. Psychological Science, 1(4), 257–264.
Simon, J. R. (1968). Effect of ear stimulated on reaction time and movement time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(2), 344–346.
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.
Stevanovski, B., Oriet, C., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Blinded by headlights. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 65–74.
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.
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.
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.
Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88(3), 354–360.
Ward, R. (2002). Independence and integration of perception and action: An introduction. Visual Cognition, 9, 385–391.
Whitney, D., Westwood, D., & Goodale, M. (2003). The influence of visual motion on fast reaching movements to a stationary object. Nature, 423, 869–873.
Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In Attention and performance VIII. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, N.J.
Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). Orlando: Academic Press.
Wilson, M., & Fox, G. (2007). Working memory for language is not special. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 470–473.
Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131(3), 460–473.
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.
Wohlschläger, A. (2000). Visual motion priming by invisible actions. Vision Research, 40(8), 925–930.
Wohlschläger, A., & Wohlschläger, A. (1998). Mental and manual rotation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2), 397–412.
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.
Wood, J. N. (2007). Visual working memory for observed actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 639–652.
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.
Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2008). A contrast effect between the concurrent production and perception of movement directions. Visual Cognition, 26, 953–978.
Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2010a). On interference effects in concurrent perception and action. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 74, 152–171.
Zwickel, J., Grosjean, M., & Prinz, W. (2010b). What part of an action interferes with ongoing perception? Acta Psychologica, 134(3), 403–409.