A common coding framework in self–other interaction: evidence from joint action task

Abstract

Many of our actions are influenced by the social context. Traditional approach attributes the influence of the social context to arousal state changes in a socially promotive way. The ideomotor approach, which postulates common coding between perceived events and intended actions, uses a conceptual scheme of ideomotor compatibility to explain self–other interaction. In this study, we recorded reaction times (RTs) and event-related potentials in a Go/NoGo task with stimulus–response (S–R) compatibility arrangement to examine how the social context affects self–other interaction. Although the social facilitation theory predicted that RTs would be faster when acting together with audience rather than acting alone, the ideomotor theory predicted S–R compatibility effects only for the joint condition. The results revealed S–R compatibility on the RTs, lateralized readiness potential of the Go trials, and P3 of the NoGo trials in the joint condition, which were in line with the predictions of the ideomotor theory. Owing to the anticipation of other’s actions, self and other’s actions are internally and unintentionally coded at the representational level and their functional equivalency can be realized through a common coding framework between perception and action systems. Social facilitation theory was not supported, because we found no significant data differences depending on the setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Asch SE (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol Monogr 70:416

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bokura H, Yamaguchi S, Kobayashi S (2001) Electrophysiological correlates for response inhibition in a Go/NoGo task. Clin Neurophysiol 112:2224–2232

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bokura H, Yamaguchi S, Kobayashi S (2005) Event-related potentials for response inhibition in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia 43:967–975

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bruin KJ, Wijers AA (2002) Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus probability: a comparative event-related potential study. Clin Neurophysiol 112:1172–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bruin KJ, Wijers AA, van Staveren AS (2001) Response priming in a Go/NoGo task: do we have to explain the Go/NoGo N2 effect in terms of response activation instead of inhibition? Clin Neurophysiol 112:1660–1671

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Clark H (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press, UK

  7. Coles MG (1989) Modern mind-brain reading: psychophysiology, physiology, and cognition. Psychophysiology 26:251–269

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Falkenstein M, Koshlykova NA, Kiroj VN, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J (1995) Late ERP components in visual and auditory Go/NoGo tasks. Electroen Clin Neurophysiol 96:36–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J (1999) ERP components in Go/NoGo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychol 101:267–291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J (2002) Inhibition-related ERP components: variation with modality, age and time-on task. J Psychophysiol 16:167–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fallgatter AJ, Strik WK (1999) The NoGo anteriorization as a neurophysiological standard index for cognitive response control. Int J Psychophysiol 32:233–238

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gallese V, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Rizzolatti G (1996) Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain 119:593–609

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gratton G, Coles MG, Sirevaag EJ, Eriksen CW, Donchin E (1988) Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: a psychophysiological analysis. J Exp Psychol Hum 14:331–344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Greenwald AG (1970a) A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. J Exp Psychol 86:20–25

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Greenwald AG (1970b) Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideomotor mechanism. Psychol Rev 77:73–99

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Greenwald AG (1972) On doing two things at once: time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. J Exp Psychol 94:52–57

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Grezes J, Armony JL, Rowe J, Passingham RE (2003) Activations related to “mirror” and “canonical” neurons in the human brain: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 18:928–937

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Guerin B (1993) Social facilitation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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 24:849–878

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Knoblich G, Jordan JS (2002) The mirror system and joint action. In: Stamenov MI, Gallese V (eds) Mirror neurons and the evolution of brain and language. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 115–124

    Google Scholar 

  21. Knoblich G, Jordan JS (2003) Action coordination in groups and individuals: learning anticipatory control. J Exp Psychol Learning 29:1006–1016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kok A (1986) Effects of degradation of visual stimulation on components of the event-related potential (ERP) in Go/NoGo reaction tasks. Biol Psychol 23:21–38

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kok A (2001) On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology 38:557–577

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kopp B, Mattler U, Goertz R, Rist F (1996) N2, P3 and the lateralized readiness potential in a NoGo task involving selective response priming. Electroen Clin Neurophysiol 99:19–27

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kornblum S, Lee JW (1995) Stimulus–response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. J Exp Psychol Hum 21:855–875

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kornblum S, Hasbroucq T, Osman A (1990) Dimension overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychol Rev 97:253–270

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kutas M, Donchin E (1980) Preparation to respond as manifested by movement-related brain potentials. Brain Res 202:95–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lavric A, Pizzagalli DA, Forstmeier S (2004) When ‘Go’ and ‘NoGo’ are equally frequent: ERP components and cortical tomography. Eur J Neurosci 20:2483–2488

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Magliero A, Bashore T, Coles MGH, Donchin E (1984) On the dependence of P300 latency on stimulus evaluation processes. Psychophysiology 21:171–186

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Masaki H, Takasawa N, Yamazaki K (2000) An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus–response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology 37:464–472

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Meltzoff AN, Decety J (2003) What imitation tells us about social cognition: a rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 358:491–500

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McCarthy G, Donchin E (1981) A metric of thought: a comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science 21:171–186

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nishitani N, Hari R (2000) Temporal dynamics of cortical representation for action. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:913–918

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pfefferbaum A, Ford JM, Weller BJ, Kopell BS (1985) ERPs to response production and inhibition. Electroen Clin Neurophysiol 60:423–434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Prinz W (1997) Perception and action planning. Eur J Cogn Psychol 9:129–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ragot R (1984) Perceptual and motor space representation: an event-related potential study. Psychophysiology 21:159–170

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ragot R, Renault B (1981) P300, as the function of S–R compatibility and motor programming. Biol Psychol 13:289–294

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Gallese V, Fogassi L (1996) Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cogn Brain Res 3:131–141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2003) Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition 88:B11–B21

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2005) How to share a task: co-representing stimulus–response mappings. J Exp Psychol Hum 31:1234–1246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sebanz N, Bekkering H, Knoblich G (2006) Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends Cogn Sci 10:70–76

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W, Wascher E (in press) Twin peaks: an ERP study of action planning and control in co-acting individuals. J Cogn Neurosci

  43. Smulders FT, Kok A, Kenemans JL, Bashore TR (1995) The temporal selectivity of additive factor effects on the reaction process revealed in ERP component latencies. Acta Psychol 90:97–109

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Spieler DH, Balota DA, Faust ME (1996) Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. J Exp Psychol 22:461–469

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Valle-Inclan F (1996) The locus of interference in the Simon effect: an ERP study. Biol Psychol 43:147–162

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Zajonc RB (1965) Social facilitation. Science 149:269–274

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted in the Laboratory for Cognitive Neuroscience and was partly supported by Academic Sinica, National Science Council (NSC 94-2572-H-010-002-PAE), and the Tzong Jwo Jang Educational Foundation of Taiwan. We also thank Shin-Mai Sun for her help in collecting the ERP data.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ovid J.-L. Tzeng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tsai, CC., Kuo, WJ., Jing, JT. et al. A common coding framework in self–other interaction: evidence from joint action task. Exp Brain Res 175, 353–362 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0557-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Self–other interaction
  • Joint action
  • Ideomotor theory
  • Social facilitation
  • Event-related potentials