Abstract
Many actions involve multiple action steps, which raises the question how far ahead people plan when they perform such actions. Here, we examined higher-order planning for action sequences and whether people planned similarly or differently when acting individually or together with an action partner. For individual performances, participants picked up an object with one hand and passed it to their other hand before placing it onto a target location. For joint performances, they picked up the object and handed it to their action partner, who placed it onto the target location. Each object could be grasped at only two possible grasping positions, implying that the first selected grasp on the object determined the postures for the rest of the action sequence. By varying the height of the target shelf, we tested whether people planned ahead and modulated their grasp choices to avoid uncomfortable end postures. Our results indicated that participants engaged in higher-order planning, but needed task experience before demonstrating such planning during both individual and joint performances. The rate of learning was similar in the two conditions, and participants transferred experience from individual to joint performance. Our results indicate similarity in mechanisms underlying individual and joint action sequence planning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atmaca S, Sebanz N, Prinz W, Knoblich G (2008) Action co-representation: the joint SNARC effect. Soc Neurosci 3(3–4):410–420. doi:10.1080/17470910801900908
Atmaca S, Sebanz N, Knoblich G (2011) The joint flanker effect: sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Exp Brain Res 211(3–4):371–385. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2709-9
Bekkering H, De Bruijn ERA, Cuijpers RH, Newman-Norlund R, Van Schie HT, Meulenbroek R (2009) Joint action: neurocognitive mechanisms supporting human interaction. Top Cogn Sci 1(2):340–352. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01023.x
Bratman ME (1993) Shared intention. Ethics 104(1):97–113. doi:10.1086/293577
Cattaneo L, Fabbri-Destro M, Boria S, Pieraccini C, Monti A, Cossu G, Rizzolatti G (2007) Impairment of actions chains in autism and its possible role in intention understanding. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(45):17825–17830. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706273104
de Bruijn ER, Miedl SF, Bekkering H (2008) Fast responders have blinders on: ERP correlates of response inhibition in competition. Cortex 44(5):580–586. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.09.003
de Bruijn ER, Miedl SF, Bekkering H (2011) How a co-actor’s task affects monitoring of own errors: evidence from a social event-related potential study. Exp Brain Res 211(3–4):397–404. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2615-1
Gilbert M (1989) On social facts. International library of philosophy. Routledge, New York
Gonzalez DA, Studenka BE, Glazebrook CM, Lyons JL (2011) Extending end-state comfort effect: do we consider the beginning state comfort of another? Acta Psychol 136(3):347–353. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.12.009
Haggard P (1998) Planning of action sequences. Acta Psychol 99(2):201–215. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(98)00011-0
Hari R (2006) Action-perception connection and the cortical mu rhythm. Prog Brain Res 159:253–260. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(06)59017-X
Hommel B, Musseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W (2001) The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci 24(5):849–937. doi:10.1017/S0140525x01000103
Hove MJ, Risen JL (2009) It's All in the Timing: interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation. Soc Cognition 27(6):949–960
Kilner JM, Marchant JL, Frith CD (2009) Relationship between activity in human primary motor cortex during action observation and the mirror neuron system. PLoS ONE 4(3):e4925
Kourtis D, Sebanz N, Knoblich G (2010) Favouritism in the motor system: social interaction modulates action simulation. Biol Lett 6(6):758–761. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.0478
Kourtis D, Sebanz N, Knoblich G (2012) Predictive representation of other people’s actions in joint action planning: An EEG study. Soc Neurosci. doi:10.1080/17470919.2012.694823
Meyer M, Hunnius S, van Elk M, van Ede F, Bekkering H (2011) Joint action modulates motor system involvement during action observation in 3-year-olds. Exp Brain Res 211(3–4):581–592. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2658-3
Milanese N, Iani C, Rubichi S (2010) Shared learning shapes human performance: transfer effects in task sharing. Cognition 116(1):15–22. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.010
Muthukumaraswamy SD, Johnson BW (2004) Primary motor cortex activation during action observation revealed by wavelet analysis of the EEG. Clin Neurophysiol 115(8):1760–1766. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2004.03.004
Pineda JA, Allison BZ, Vankov A (2000) The effects of self-movement, observation, and imagination on mu rhythms and readiness potentials (RP’s): toward a brain-computer interface (BCI). IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 8(2):219–222
Prinz W (1997) Perception and action planning. Eur J Cogn Psychol 9(2):129–154. doi:10.1080/713752551
Ray M, Welsh TN (2011) Response selection during a joint action task. J Mot Behav 43(4):329–332. doi:10.1080/00222895.2011.592871
Rizzolatti G, Sinigaglia C (2010) The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: interpretations and misinterpretations. Nat Rev Neurosci 11(4):264–274. doi:10.1038/Nrn2805
Rosenbaum DA, Marchak F, Barnes HJ, Vaughan J, Slotta JD, Jorgensen MJ (1990) Constraints for action selection—overhand versus underhand grips. Atten Perform 13:321–342
Rosenbaum DA, Meulenbroek RJ, Vaughan J, Jansen C (2001) Posture-based motion planning: applications to grasping. Psychol Rev 108(4):709–734. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.709
Rosenbaum DA, Chapman KM, Weigelt M, Weiss DJ, van der We R (2012) Cognition, action, and object manipulation. Psychol Bull 138(5):924–946. doi:10.1037/A0027839
Santamaria JP, Rosenbaum DA (2011) Etiquette and effort: holding doors for others. Psychol Sci 22(5):584–588. doi:10.1177/0956797611406444
Searle JR (1990) Collective intentions and actions. In: Cohen PR, Morgan J, Pollack ME (eds) Intentions in communication. Bradford Books/MIT press, Cambridge
Searle JR (1997) The construction of social reality. Philos Phenomen Res 57(2):427–428. doi:10.2307/2953731
Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2003) Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition 88(3):B11–B21. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00043-X
Tsai CC, Kuo WJ, Jing JT, Hung DL, Tzeng OJL (2006) A common coding framework in self-other interaction: evidence from joint action task. Exp Brain Res 175(2):353–362. doi:10.1007/s00221-006-0557-9
Welsh TN, Higgins L, Ray M, Weeks DJ (2007) Seeing vs. believing: is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? Hum Mov Sci 26(6):853–866. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2007.06.003
Wenke D, Atmaca S, Hollaender A, Baess P, Liepelt R, Prinz W (2011) What is shared in joint action? Issues of co-representation, response conflict, and agent identification. Rev Philos Psychol 2(2):147–172
Acknowledgments
We thank Harold Bekkering, Guenther Knoblich, Ruud Meulenbroek, David Rosenbaum, and Natalie Sebanz for helpful input on the project. We thank Tim Welsh and an anonymous reviewer for additional input. We also thank the Technical Support Group at Radboud University Nijmegen for building the apparatus.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Marlene Meyer and Robrecht P. R. D. van der Wel: equal contributions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meyer, M., van der Wel, R.P.R.D. & Hunnius, S. Higher-order action planning for individual and joint object manipulations. Exp Brain Res 225, 579–588 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3398-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3398-8