Co-actors represent the order of each other's actions
- PMID: 30142512
- PMCID: PMC6180229
- DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.008
Co-actors represent the order of each other's actions
Abstract
Previous research has shown that people represent each other's tasks and actions when acting together. However, less is known about how co-actors represent each other's action sequences. Here, we asked whether co-actors represent the order of each other's actions within an action sequence, or whether they merely represent the intended end state of a joint action together with their own contribution. In the present study, two co-actors concurrently performed action sequences composed of two actions. We predicted that if co-actors represent the order of each other's actions, they should experience interference when the order of their actions differs. Supporting this prediction, the results of six experiments consistently showed that co-actors moved more slowly when performing the same actions in a different order compared to performing the same actions in the same order. In line with findings from bimanual movement tasks, our results indicate that interference can arise due to differences in movement parameters and due to differences in the perceptual characteristics of movement goals. The present findings extend previous research on co-representation, providing evidence that people represent not only the elements of another's task, but also their temporal structure.
Keywords: Action sequence; Bimanual control; Co-representation; Coordination; Joint action; Social cognition.
Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Figures









Similar articles
-
Co-representation of others' task constraints in joint action.J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017 Aug;43(8):1480-1493. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000403. Epub 2017 Apr 3. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017. PMID: 28368165
-
Co-actors represent each other's task regularity through social statistical learning.Cognition. 2023 Jun;235:105411. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105411. Epub 2023 Feb 21. Cognition. 2023. PMID: 36821997
-
Entrainment and task co-representation effects for discrete and continuous action sequences.Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Dec;22(6):1685-91. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0831-6. Psychon Bull Rev. 2015. PMID: 25911443
-
Rhythm in joint action: psychological and neurophysiological mechanisms for real-time interpersonal coordination.Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Dec 19;369(1658):20130394. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0394. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014. PMID: 25385772 Free PMC article. Review.
-
[Implicit Effects of Other's Actions on One's Own Actions in Sports].Brain Nerve. 2019 Feb;71(2):113-124. doi: 10.11477/mf.1416201230. Brain Nerve. 2019. PMID: 30718440 Review. Japanese.
Cited by
-
Interpersonal prior information informs ensemble coding through the co-representation process.Psychon Bull Rev. 2024 Apr;31(2):886-896. doi: 10.3758/s13423-023-02390-3. Epub 2023 Oct 2. Psychon Bull Rev. 2024. PMID: 37783900
-
Interbrain neural correlates of self and other integration in joint statistical learning.NPJ Sci Learn. 2024 Nov 20;9(1):68. doi: 10.1038/s41539-024-00280-4. NPJ Sci Learn. 2024. PMID: 39567522 Free PMC article.
-
Crossmodal correspondences as common ground for joint action.Acta Psychol (Amst). 2021 Jan;212:103222. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103222. Epub 2020 Dec 7. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2021. PMID: 33302228 Free PMC article.
-
Understanding others' distal goals from proximal communicative actions.PLoS One. 2023 Jan 20;18(1):e0280265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280265. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 36662700 Free PMC article.
-
An approach to social flexibility: Congruency effects during spontaneous word-by-word interaction.PLoS One. 2020 Jun 24;15(6):e0235083. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235083. eCollection 2020. PLoS One. 2020. PMID: 32579618 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Adam J.J., Nieuwenstein J.H., Huys R., Paas F.G., Kingma H., Willems P., Werry M. Control of rapid aimed hand movements: The one-target advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2000;26(1):295–312. - PubMed
-
- Albert N.B., Weigelt M., Hazeltine E., Ivry R.B. Target selection during bimanual reaching to direct cues is unaffected by the perceptual similarity of the targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2007;33(5):1107–1116. - PubMed
-
- Bested S.R., de Grosbois J., Tremblay L. Better together: Contrasting the hypotheses explaining the one-target advantage. Human Movement Science. 2018;58:347–356. - PubMed
-
- Böckler A., Knoblich G., Sebanz N. Effects of a coactor's focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2012;38(6):1404–1415. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical