Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 232, Issue 4, pp 1193–1206 | Cite as

The effect of movement kinematics on predicting the timing of observed actions

  • Lincoln J. CollingEmail author
  • William F. Thompson
  • John Sutton
Research Article


The ability to predict the actions of other agents is vital for joint action tasks. Recent theory suggests that action prediction relies on an emulator system that permits observers to use a model of their own movement kinematics to predict the actions of other agents. If this is the case, then people should be more accurate at generating predictions about actions that are similar to their own. We tested this hypothesis in two experiments in which participants were required to predict the occurrence and timing of particular critical points in an observed action. In Experiment 1, we employed a self/other prediction paradigm in which prediction accuracy for recordings of self-generated movements was compared with prediction accuracy for recordings of other-generated movements. As expected, prediction was more accurate for recordings of self-generated actions because in this case the movement kinematics of the observer and observed stimuli are maximally similar. In Experiment 1, people were able to produce actions at their own tempo and, therefore, the results might be explained in terms of self-similarity in action production tempo rather than in terms of movement kinematics. To control for this possibility in Experiment 2, we compared prediction accuracy for stimuli that were matched in tempo but differed only in terms of kinematics. The results showed that participants were more accurate when predicting actions with a human kinematic profile than tempo-matched stimuli that moved with non-human kinematics. Finally, in Experiment 3, we confirmed that the results of Experiment 2 cannot be explained by human-like stimuli containing a slowing down phase before the critical points. Taken together, these findings provide further support for the role of motor emulation in action prediction, and they suggest that the action prediction mechanism produces output that is available rapidly and available to drive action control suggesting that it can plausibly support joint action coordination.


Perception–action Joint action Embodied cognition Action prediction 



We thank Günther Knoblich, Natalie Sebanz, Peter Keller, Harold Bekkering, Roman Liepelt, Kate Stevens, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This work was supported by a Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship awarded to the first author.


  1. Abernethy B (1990) Anticipation in squash: differences in advance cue utilization between expert and novice players. J Sports Sci 8:17–34. doi: 10.1080/02640419008732128 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aglioti SM, Cesari P, Romani M, Urgesi C (2008) Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nat Neurosci 11:1109–1116. doi: 10.1038/nn.2182 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Colling LJ, Knoblich G, Sebanz N (2013) How does “mirroring” support joint action? Cortex 49:2964–2965. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2013.06.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Csibra G (2008) Action mirroring and action understanding: an alternative account. In: Haggard P, Rossetti Y, Kawato M (eds) Sensorimotor foundations of higher cognition. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 435–459Google Scholar
  5. Flach R, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2003) Off-line authorship effects in action perception. Brain Cogn 53:503–513. doi: 10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00211-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flash T, Hogan N (1985) The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model. J Neurosci 5:1688–1703PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fraisse P (1982) Rhythm and tempo. In: Deutsch D (ed) The psychology of music. Academic Press, New York, pp 149–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graf M, Reitzner B, Corves C et al (2007) Predicting point-light actions in real-time. NeuroImage 36(Suppl 2):T22–T32. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.017 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grush R (1997) The architecture of representation. Philos Psychol 10:5. doi: 10.1080/09515089708573201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grush R (2004) The emulation theory of representation: motor control, imagery, and perception. Behav Brain Sci 27:377–396. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000093 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hove MJ, Keller PE (2010) Spatiotemporal relations and movement trajectories in visuomotor synchronization. Music Percept 28:15–26. doi: 10.1525/mp.2010.28.1.15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hove MJ, Spivey MJ, Krumhansl CL (2010) Compatibility of motion facilitates visuomotor synchronization. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:1525–1534. doi: 10.1037/a0019059 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Isaacs LD, Finch AE (1983) Anticipatory timing of beginning and intermediate tennis players. Percept Mot Skills 57:451–454. doi: 10.2466/pms.1983.57.2.451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jokisch D, Daum I, Troje NF (2006) Self recognition versus recognition of others by biological motion: viewpoint-dependent effects. Percept 35:911–920. doi: 10.1068/p5540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keller PE, Knoblich G, Repp BH (2007) Pianists duet better when they play with themselves: on the possible role of action simulation in synchronization. Conscious Cogn 16:102–111. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2005.12.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirschner S, Tomasello M (2009) Joint drumming: social context facilitates synchronization in preschool children. J Exp Child Psychol 102:299–314. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.07.005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knoblich G, Flach R (2001) Predicting the effects of actions: interactions of perception and action. Psychol Sci 12:467–472. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00387 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knoblich G, Seigerschmidt E, Flach R, Christensen W (2002) Authorship effects in the prediction of handwriting strokes: evidence for action simulation during action perception. Q J Exp Psychol Sect A 55:1027–1046. doi: 10.1080/02724980143000631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Large EW (2000) On synchronizing movements to music. Hum Mov Sci 19:527–566. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9457(00)00026-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mann DL, Abernethy B, Farrow D (2010) Action specificity increases anticipatory performance and the expert advantage in natural interceptive tasks. Acta Psychol 135:17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prinz W (1997) Perception and action planning. Eur J Cogn Psychol 9:129–154. doi: 10.1080/713752551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Repp BH (2005) Sensorimotor synchronization: a review of the tapping literature. Psychon Bull Rev 12:969–992. doi: 10.3758/BF03206433 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Repp BH, Knoblich G (2004) Perceiving action identity how pianists recognize their own performances. Psychol Sci 15:604–609. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00727.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Repp BH, Su Y-H (2013) Sensorimotor synchronization: a review of recent research (2006–2012). Psychon Bull Rev 20:403–452. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0371-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:169–192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidt RC, Carello C, Turvey MT (1990) Phase transitions and critical fluctuations in the visual coordination of rhythmic movements between people. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 16:227–247. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.16.2.227 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidt RC, Fitzpatrick P, Caron R, Mergeche J (2011) Understanding social motor coordination. Hum Mov Sci 30:834–845. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2010.05.014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sebanz N, Knoblich G (2009) Prediction in joint action: what, when, and where. Top Cogn Sci 1:353–367. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01024.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sebanz N, Shiffrar M (2009) Detecting deception in a bluffing body: the role of expertise. Psychon Bull Rev 16:170–175. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.170 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sevdalis V, Keller PE (2010) Cues for self-recognition in point-light displays of actions performed in synchrony with music. Conscious Cogn 19:617–626. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.03.017 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sparenberg P, Springer A, Prinz W (2012) Predicting others’ actions: evidence for a constant time delay in action simulation. Psychol Res 76:41–49. doi: 10.1007/s00426-011-0321-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spray JA (1986) Absolute error revisited: an accuracy indicator in disguise. J Mot Behav 18:225–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Springer A, Brandstädter S, Liepelt R et al (2011) Motor execution affects action prediction. Brain Cogn 76:26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.03.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stadler W, Springer A, Parkinson J, Prinz W (2012) Movement kinematics affect action prediction: comparing human to non-human point-light actions. Psychol Res 76:395–406. doi: 10.1007/s00426-012-0431-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Viviani P, Stucchi N (1992) Biological movements look uniform: evidence of motor-perceptual interactions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 18:603–623. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.3.603 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson M, Knoblich G (2005) The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychol Bull 131:460–473. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.3.460 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wöllner C (2012) Self-recognition of highly skilled actions: a study of orchestral conductors. Conscious Cogn 21:1311–1321. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2012.06.006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wolpert DM (1997) Computational approaches to motor control. Trends Cogn Sci 1:209–216. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)01070-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lincoln J. Colling
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • William F. Thompson
    • 3
  • John Sutton
    • 3
  1. 1.School of PsychologyAustralian Catholic UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and BehaviourRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Its DisordersMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations