Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 236, Issue 8, pp 2411–2426 | Cite as

Timing of grip and goal activation during action perception: a priming study

  • Jérémy Decroix
  • Solène Kalénine
Research Article

Abstract

Several models of action recognition acknowledge the involvement of distinct grip and goal representations in the processing of others’ actions. Yet, their functional role and temporal organization are still debated. The present priming study aimed at evaluating the relative timing of grip and goal activation during the processing of photographs of object-directed actions. Action could be correct or incorrect owing to grip and/or goal violations. Twenty-eight (Experiment 1) and 25 (Experiment 2) healthy adults judged the correctness of target actions according to object typical use. Target pictures were primed by action pictures sharing the same grip or same goal, both the same grip and same goal or none. Primes were presented for 66 or 300 ms in Experiment 1 and for 120 or 220 ms in Experiment 2. In Experiment 1, facilitative priming effects were observed for goal and grip similarity after 300 ms primes but only for goal after 66 ms primes. In Experiment 2, facilitative priming effects were found for both goal and grip similarity from 120 ms of prime processing. In addition, results from a control condition in Experiment 2 indicated that mere object priming could partially account for goal similarity priming effects, suggesting that object identity may help the observer to make predictions about possible action goals. Findings demonstrate an early and first activation of goal representations, as compared to grip representations, in action decoding, consistent with predictive accounts of action understanding. Future studies should determine to what extent the timing of grip and goal activation is context-sensitive.

Keywords

Action understanding Goals Grip Action semantics Priming 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR-16-CE28-0003 and ANR-11-EQPX-0023) and benefited from a regional fellowship (Hauts-de-France) to J. Decroix.

Supplementary material

221_2018_5309_MOESM1_ESM.tif (59.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIF 60524 KB)

References

  1. Amoruso L, Urgesi C (2016) Familiarity modulates motor activation while other species’ actions are observed: a magnetic stimulation study. Eur J Neurosci 43:765–772.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13154 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansuini C, Santello M, Massaccesi S, Castiello U (2005) Effects of End-Goal on Hand Shaping. J Neurophysiol 95:2456–2465.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01107.2005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansuini C, Cavallo A, Bertone C, Becchio C (2014) The visible face of intention: why kinematics matters. Front Psychol 5:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avanzini P, Fabbri-Destro M, Campi C et al (2013) Spatiotemporal dynamics in understanding hand–object interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:15878–15885.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314420110 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bach P, Nicholson T, Hudson M (2014) The affordance-matching hypothesis: how objects guide action understanding and prediction. Front Hum Neurosci 8:254.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00254 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang 68:255–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barsalou LW (2008) Grounded cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:617–645.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Barton K (2016) MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package version 1.40.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
  9. Bates D, Kliegl R, Vasishth S, Baayen H (2015a) Parsimonious mixed models, pp 1–27. arXiv Prepr arXiv:1506.04967Google Scholar
  10. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015b) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Catmur C (2015) Understanding intentions from actions: direct perception, inference, and the roles of mirror and mentalizing systems. Conscious Cogn.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.03.012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cattaneo L, Sandrini M, Schwarzbach J (2010) State-dependent TMS reveals a hierarchical representation of observed acts in the temporal, parietal, and premotor cortices. Cereb Cortex 20:2252–2258.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp291 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavallo A, Heyes C, Becchio C et al (2014) Timecourse of mirror and counter-mirror effects measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 9:1082–1088.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nst085 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavallo A, Koul A, Ansuini C et al (2016) Decoding intentions from movement kinematics. Sci Rep 6:37036.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37036 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper RP, Ruh N, Mareschal D (2014) The goal circuit model: a hierarchical multi-route model of the acquisition and control of routine sequential action in humans. Cogn Sci 38:244–274.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12067 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Geangu E, Senna I, Croci E, Turati C (2015) The effect of biomechanical properties of motion on infants’ perception of goal-directed grasping actions. J Exp Child Psychol 129:55–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.08.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentsch A, Weber A, Synofzik M et al (2016) Towards a common framework of grounded action cognition: relating motor control, perception and cognition. Cognition 146:81–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Giglio ACA, Minati L, Boggio PS (2013) Throwing the banana away and keeping the peel: neuroelectric responses to unexpected but physically feasible action endings. Brain Res 1532:56–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2013.08.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Grafton ST, Hamilton AFDC (2007) Evidence for a distributed hierarchy of action representation in the brain. Hum Mov Sci 26:590–616.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.05.009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Hrkać M, Wurm MF, Schubotz RI (2014) Action observers implicitly expect actors to act goal-coherently, even if they do not: an fMRI study. Hum Brain Mapp 35:2178–2190.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22319 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hudson M, Nicholson T, Ellis R, Bach P (2016a) I see what you say: prior knowledge of other’s goals automatically biases the perception of their actions. Cognition 146:245–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hudson M, Nicholson T, Simpson WA et al (2016b) One step ahead: the perceived kinematics of others’ actions are biased toward expected goals. J Exp Psychol Gen 145:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000126 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Iacoboni M, Molnar-Szakacs I, Gallese V et al (2005) Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system. PLoS Biol 3:0529–0535.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacob P, Jeannerod M (2005) The motor theory of social cognition: a critique. Trends Cogn Sci 9:21–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacquet PO, Avenanti A (2015) Perturbing the action observation network during perception and categorization of actions’ goals and grips: state-dependency and virtual lesion TMS effects. Cereb Cortex 25:598–608.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht242 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kalénine S, Shapiro AD, Buxbaum LJ (2013) Dissociations of action means and outcome processing in left-hemisphere stroke. Neuropsychologia 51:1224–1233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.03.017 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Kilner JM (2011) More than one pathway to action understanding. Trends Cogn Sci 15:352–357.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.06.005 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Kilner JM, Friston KJ, Frith CD (2007) Predictive coding: an account of the mirror neuron system. Cogn Process 8:159–166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-007-0170-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Kristjansson A (2008) “I know what you did on the last trial”—a selective review of research on priming in visual search. Front Biosci 13:1171.  https://doi.org/10.2741/2753 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lepage JF, Tremblay S, Théoret H (2010) Early non-specific modulation of corticospinal excitability during action observation. Eur J Neurosci 31:931–937.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07121.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewkowicz D, Quesque F, Coello Y, Delevoye-Turrell YN (2015) Individual differences in reading social intentions from motor deviants. Front Psychol 6:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Longo MR, Kosobud A, Bertenthal BI (2008) Automatic imitation of biomechanically possible and impossible actions: effects of priming movements versus goals. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:489–501.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.489 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Manera V, Becchio C, Schouten B et al (2011) Communicative interactions improve visual detection of biological motion. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014594 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Matuschek H, Kliegl R, Vasishth S et al (2017) Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. J Mem Lang 94:305–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Naish KR, Reader AT, Houston-Price C et al (2013) To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences. Exp Brain Res 225:261–275.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3367-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Naish KR, Houston-Price C, Bremner AJ, Holmes NP (2014) Effects of action observation on corticospinal excitability: muscle specificity, direction, and timing of the mirror response. Neuropsychologia 64:331–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.09.034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Neal A, Kilner JM (2010) What is simulated in the action observation network when we observe actions? Eur J Neurosci 32:1765–1770.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07435.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Nicholson T, Roser M, Bach P (2017) Understanding the goals of everyday instrumental actions is primarily linked to object, not motor-kinematic, information: evidence from fMRI. PLoS One 12:1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169700 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Novack MA, Wakefield EM, Goldin-Meadow S (2016) What makes a movement a gesture? Cognition 146:339–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.10.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ortigue S, Thompson JC, Parasuraman R, Grafton ST (2009) Spatio-temporal dynamics of human intention understanding in temporo-parietal cortex: a combined EEG/fMRI repetition suppression paradigm. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006962 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quesque F, Coello Y (2015) Perceiving what you intend to do from what you do: evidence for embodiment in social interactions. Socioaffect Neurosci Psychol 5:28602.  https://doi.org/10.3402/snp.v5.28602 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Quesque F, Lewkowicz D, Delevoye-Turrell YN, Coello Y (2013) Effects of social intention on movement kinematics in cooperative actions. Front Neurorobot 7:14.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2013.00014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  45. Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L (2014) The mirror mechanism: recent findings and perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 369:20130420.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0420 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Schenke KC, Wyer NA, Bach P (2016) The things you do: internal models of others’ expected behaviour guide action observation. PLoS One 11:e0158910.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158910 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Thill S, Caligiore D, Borghi AM et al (2013) Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: an integrative review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37:491–521.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Thioux M, Keysers C (2015) Object visibility alters the relative contribution of ventral visual stream and mirror neuron system to goal anticipation during action observation. Neuroimage 105:380–394.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Tidoni E, Borgomaneri S, di Pellegrino G, Avenanti A (2013) Action simulation plays a critical role in deceptive action recognition. J Neurosci 33:611–623.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2228-11.2013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. van Elk M, Van Schie HT, Bekkering H (2008) Conceptual knowledge for understanding other’s actions is organized primarily around action goals. Exp Brain Res 189:99–107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-008-1408-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. van Elk M, Bousardt R, Bekkering H, van Schie HT (2012) Using goal- and grip-related information for understanding the correctness of other’s actions: an ERP study. PLoS One 7:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Elk M, van Schie H, Bekkering H (2014) Action semantics: a unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality-specific object knowledge. Phys Life Rev 11:220–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. van Schie HT, Bekkering H (2007) Neural mechanisms underlying immediate and final action goals in object use reflected by slow wave brain potentials. Brain Res 1148:183–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.085 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wolpert D, Doya K, Kawato M (2003) A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 358:593–602.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1238 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Wurm MF, Lingnau A (2015) Decoding actions at different levels of abstraction. J Neurosci 35:7727–7735.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0188-15 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Wurm MF, Schubotz RI (2012) NeuroImage squeezing lemons in the bathroom: contextual information modulates action recognition. Neuroimage 59:1551–1559.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.08.038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Wurm MF, Schubotz RI (2016) What’s she doing in the kitchen? Context helps when actions are hard to recognize. Psychon Bull Rev.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1108-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yoon EY, Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ (2010) The paired-object affordance effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36:812–824.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017175 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Zentgraf K, Munzert J, Bischoff M, Newman-Norlund RD (2011) Simulation during observation of human actions—theories, empirical studies, applications. Vision Res 51:827–835.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.01.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang L, Zhang L, Mou X, Zhang D (2011) FSIM: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 8:2378–2386CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ. Lille, CNRS, CHU Lille, UMR 9193—SCALab—Sciences Cognitives et Sciences AffectivesLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations