Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 116–131 | Cite as

The dynamics of the interrelation of perception and action across the life span

  • Stephanie WermelingerEmail author
  • Anja Gampe
  • Moritz M. Daum
Original Article

Abstract

Successful social interaction relies on the interaction partners’ perception, anticipation and understanding of their respective actions. The perception of a particular action and the capability to produce this action share a common representational ground. So far, no study has explored the interrelation between action perception and production across the life span using the same tasks and the same measurement techniques. This study was designed to fill this gap. Participants between 3 and 80 years (N = 214) observed two multistep actions of different familiarities and then reproduced the according actions. Using eye tracking, we measured participants’ action perception via their prediction of action goals during observation. To capture subtler perceptual processes, we additionally analysed the dynamics and recurrent patterns within participants’ gaze behaviour. Action production was assessed via the accuracy of the participants’ reproduction of the observed actions. No age-related differences were found for the perception of the familiar action, where participants of all ages could rely on previous experience. In the unfamiliar action, where participants had less experience, action goals were predicted more frequently with increasing age. The recurrence in participants’ gaze behaviour was related to both, age and action production: gaze behaviour was more recurrent (i.e. less flexible) in very young and very old participants, and lower levels of recurrence (i.e. greater flexibility) were related to higher scores in action production across participants. Incorporating a life-span perspective, this study illustrates the dynamic nature of developmental differences in the associations of action production with action perception.

Notes

Acknowledgements

During the work on her dissertation, Stephanie Wermelinger was a pre-doctoral fellow of the International Max Planck Research School on the Life Course (LIFE, http://www.imprs-life.mpg.de; participating institutions: Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, University of Zurich). This project is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant Number: S-63216-03-01). We thank the participants and their parents for their participation. We also thank Jean Bernardsgrütter, Jannis Behr, Gaja Furrer, Christina Herzog, Vanessa Marti, Vanessa Meili and Jan Nussbaumer for their help with the data collection and coding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants or their parents (for children until 16 years of age) included in the study.

References

  1. Adolph, K. E., & Berger, S. E. (2011). Physical and motor development. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (pp. 241–302). Hilsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Ambrosini, E., Costantini, M., & Sinigaglia, C. (2011). Grasping with the eyes. Journal of Neurophysiology, 106(3), 1437–1442.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00118.2011.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. C., Anderson, F., Kingstone, A., & Bischof, W. F. (2015). A comparison of scanpath comparison methods. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1377–1392.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0550-3.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N. C., Bischof, W. F., Laidlaw, K. E. W., Risko, E. F., & Kingstone, A. (2013). Recurrence quantification analysis of eye movements. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 842–856.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0299-5.Google Scholar
  5. Balser, N., Lorey, B., Pilgramm, S., Naumann, T., Kindermann, S., Stark, R., … Munzert, J. (2014). The influence of expertise on brain activation of the action observation network during anticipation of tennis and volleyball serves. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00568.Google Scholar
  6. Bernard, J. A., & Seidler, R. D. (2012). Evidence for motor cortex dedifferentiation in older adults. Neurobiology of Aging, 33(9), 1890–1899.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.06.021.Google Scholar
  7. Blakemore, S. J., & Decety, J. (2001). From the perception of action tto the understanding of intention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 561–567.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35086023.Google Scholar
  8. Brassen, S., Gamer, M., Peters, J., Gluth, S., & Buchel, C. (2012). Don’t look back in anger! Responsiveness to missed chances in successful and nonsuccessful aging. Science, 336(6081), 612–614.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217516.Google Scholar
  9. Bukowski, W. M., Laursen, B., & Rubin, K. H. (2009). Social and emotional development. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  10. Calvo-Merino, B., Grèzes, J., Glaser, D. E., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2006). Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Current Biology, 16, 1905–1910.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.065.Google Scholar
  11. Cannon, E. N., Simpson, E. A., Fox, N. A., Vanderwert, R. E., Woodward, A. L., & Ferrari, P. F. (2016). Relations between infants’ emerging reach-grasp competence and event-related desynchronization in EEG. Developmental Science, 1, 50–62.  https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12295.Google Scholar
  12. Cannon, E. N., Woodward, A. L., Gredebäck, G., von Hofsten, C., & Turek, C. (2012). Action production influences 12-month-old infants’ attention to others’ actions. Developmental Science, 15(1), 35–42.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01095.x.Google Scholar
  13. Casile, A., & Giese, M. a. (2006). Nonvisual motor training influences biological motion perception. Current Biology, 16(1), 69–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.10.071.Google Scholar
  14. Catmur, C., Gillmeister, H., Bird, G., Liepelt, R., Brass, M., & Heyes, C. (2008). Through the looking glass: Counter-mirror activation following incompatible sensorimotor learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 28(6), 1208–1215.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06419.x.Google Scholar
  15. Catmur, C., Walsh, V., & Heyes, C. (2009). Associative sequence learning: The role of experience in the development of imitation and the mirror system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 364(1528), 2369–2380.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0048.Google Scholar
  16. Costello, M. C., & Bloesch, E. K. (2017). Are older adults less embodied? A review of age effects through the lens of embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00267.Google Scholar
  17. Costello, M. C., Bloesch, E. K., Davoli, C. C., Panting, N. D., Abrams, R. A., & Brockmole, J. R. (2014). Spatial representations in older adults are not modified by action: Evidence from tool use. Psychology and Aging.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000029.Google Scholar
  18. Cross, E. S., de Hamilton, A. F. C., & Grafton, S. T. (2006). Building a motor simulation de novo: Observation of dance by dancers. NeuroImage, 31, 1257–1267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.033.Google Scholar
  19. D’Souza, H., Cowie, D., Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Bremner, A. J. (2017). Specialization of the motor system in infancy: From broad tuning to selectively specialized purposeful actions. Developmental Science, 20, e12409.  https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12409.Google Scholar
  20. Daum, M. M., Prinz, W., & Aschersleben, G. (2011). Perception and production of object-related grasping in 6-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(4), 810–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.10.003.Google Scholar
  21. Diaconescu, A. O., Hasher, L., & McIntosh, A. R. (2013). Visual dominance and multisensory integration changes with age. NeuroImage, 65, 152–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.057.Google Scholar
  22. Diersch, N., Cross, E. S., Stadler, W., Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Rieger, M. (2012). Representing others’ actions: The role of expertise in the aging mind. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(4), 525–541.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0404-x.Google Scholar
  23. Diersch, N., Jones, A. L., & Cross, E. S. (2016). The timing and precision of action prediction in the aging brain. Human Brain Mapping, 37(1), 54–66.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.23012.Google Scholar
  24. Diersch, N., Mueller, K., Cross, E. S., Stadler, W., Rieger, M., & Schütz-Bosbach, S. (2013). Action prediction in younger versus older adults: Neural correlates of motor familiarity. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64195.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064195.Google Scholar
  25. Elsner, C., D’Ausilio, A., Gredebäck, G., Falck-Ytter, T., & Fadiga, L. (2013). The motor cortex is causally related to predictive eye movements during action observation. Neuropsychologia, 51, 488–492.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.12.007.Google Scholar
  26. Falck-Ytter, T., Gredebäck, G., & von Hofsten, C. (2006). Infants predict other people’s action goals. Nature Neuroscience, 9(7), 878–879.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1729.Google Scholar
  27. Farrow, D., & Abernethy, B. (2003). Do expertise and the degree of perception - action coupling affect natural anticipatory performance? Perception, 32(9), 1127–1139.  https://doi.org/10.1068/p3323.Google Scholar
  28. Flanagan, J. R., & Johansson, R. S. (2003). Action plans used in action observation. Nature, 424, 769–771.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01861.Google Scholar
  29. Frick, A., Daum, M. M., Wilson, M., & Wilkening, F. (2009). Effects of action on children’s and adults’ mental imagery. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(1), 34–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.01.003.Google Scholar
  30. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/119.2.593.Google Scholar
  31. Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(12), 493–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01262-5.Google Scholar
  32. Gampe, A., Prinz, W., & Daum, M. M. (2015). Measuring action understanding: Relations between goal prediction and imitation. British Journal of Developmental Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12125.Google Scholar
  33. Gardner, T., Aglinskas, A., & Cross, E. S. (2017). Probing the action observation network response to varying levels of action familiarity. NeuroImage.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.060.Google Scholar
  34. Gardner, T., Goulden, N., & Cross, E. S. (2015). Dynamic modulation of the action observation network by movement familiarity. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(4), 1561–1572.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2942-14.2015.Google Scholar
  35. Gesierich, B., Bruzzo, A., Ottoboni, G., & Finos, L. (2008). Human gaze behaviour during action execution and observation. Acta Psychologica, 128, 324–330.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.006.Google Scholar
  36. Grafton, S. T. (2009). Embodied cognition and the simulation of action to understand others. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 97–117.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04425.x.Google Scholar
  37. Haslinger, B., Erhard, P., Altenmüller, E., Schroeder, U., Boecker, H., & Ceballos-Baumann, A. O. (2005). Transmodal sensorimotor networks during action observation in professional pianists. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(2), 282–293.  https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929053124893.Google Scholar
  38. Haueisen, J., & Knösche, T. R. (2001). Involuntary motor activity in pianists evoked by music perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(6), 786–792.  https://doi.org/10.1162/08989290152541449.Google Scholar
  39. Hayes, S. J., Roberts, J. W., Elliott, D., & Bennett, S. J. (2014). Top-down attentional processes modulate the coding of atypical biological motion kinematics in the absence of motor signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1641–1653.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037200.Google Scholar
  40. Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0. Economic Evaluation, 2, 217–227.Google Scholar
  41. Hecht, H., Vogt, S., & Prinz, W. (2001). Motor learning enhances perceptual judgment: A case for action-perception transfer. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 65, 3–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260000043.Google Scholar
  42. Heuninckx, S., Wenderoth, N., & Swinnen, S. P. (2010). Age-related reduction in the differential pathways involved in internal and external movement generation. Neurobiology of Aging, 31, 301–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2008.03.021.Google Scholar
  43. Heyes, C. (2010). Where do mirror neurons come from? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(4), 575–583.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.11.007.Google Scholar
  44. Holmén, K., & Furukawa, H. (2002). Loneliness, health and social network among elderly people—A follow-up study. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 35(3), 261–274.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4943(02)00049-3.Google Scholar
  45. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103.Google Scholar
  46. Houx, P. J., & Jolles, J. (1993). Age-related decline of psychomotor speed: Effects of age, brain health, sex, and education. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 195–211.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1993.76.1.195.Google Scholar
  47. Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286(5449), 2526–2528.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5449.2526.Google Scholar
  48. Johnson, M. H. (2000). Functional brain development in infants: Elements of an interactive specialization framework. Child Development, 71(1), 75–81.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00120.Google Scholar
  49. Johnson, M. H. (2001). Functional brain development in humans. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 2, 475–483.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35081509.Google Scholar
  50. Karni, A., Meyer, G., Rey-Hipolito, C., Jezzard, P., Adams, M. M., Turner, R., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1998). The acquisition of skilled motor performance: Fast and slow experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 95(3), 861–868.Google Scholar
  51. Kauranen, K., & Vanharanta, H. (1996). Aging, gender, and handedness in motor performance of upper and lower extremities’. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 515–525.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1996.82.2.515.Google Scholar
  52. Kirsch, L. P., & Cross, E. S. (2015). Additive routes to action learning: Layering experience shapes engagement of the action observation network. Cerebral Cortex.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhv167.Google Scholar
  53. Knoblich, G., & Flach, R. (2001). Predicting the effects of actions: Interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science, 12(6), 467–472.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00387.Google Scholar
  54. Knoblich, G., Seigerschmidt, E., Flach, R., & Prinz, W. (2002). Authorship effects in the prediction of handwriting strokes: Evidence for action simulation during action perception. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(3), 1027–1046.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980143000631.Google Scholar
  55. Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72(4), 1091–1111.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00336.Google Scholar
  56. Kochukhova, O., & Gredebäck, G. (2010). Preverbal infants anticipate that food will be brought to the mouth: An eye tracking study of manual feeding and flying spoons. Child Development, 81(6), 1729–1738.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01506.x.Google Scholar
  57. Koppelmans, V., Hirsiger, S., Mérillat, S., & Seidler, R. D. (2015). Cerebellar gray and white matter volume and their relation with age and manual motor performance in healthy older adults. Human Brain Mapping, 2363, 2352–2363.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22775.Google Scholar
  58. Kuehn, E., Perez-Lopez, M. B., Diersch, N., Döhler, J., Wolbers, T., & Riemer, M. (2017). Embodiment in the aging mind. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.016.Google Scholar
  59. Leist, A. K., Kulmala, J., & Nyqvist, F. (2014). Health and Cognition in Old Age: From Biomedical and Life Course Factors to Policy and Practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. Léonard, G., & Tremblay, F. (2008). Corticomotor facilitation associated with observation and imagery of hand actions is impaired in Parkinson’s disease. Experimental Brain Research, 185(2), 249–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1150-6.Google Scholar
  61. Li, S. C., Lindenberger, U., Hommel, B., Aschersleben, G., Prinz, W., & Baltes, P. B. (2004). Transformations in the couplings among intellectual cognitive processes across the life span. Psychological Science, 15(3), 155–163.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503003.x.Google Scholar
  62. Loucks, J., & Sommerville, J. A. (2012). The role of motor experience in understanding action function: The case of the precision grasp. Child Development, 83(3), 801–809.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01735.x.Google Scholar
  63. Mahoney, J. R., Verghese, J., Dumas, K., Wang, C., & Holtzer, R. (2012). The effect of multisensory cues on attention in aging. Brain Research, 1472, 63–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.07.014.Google Scholar
  64. Marty, B., Bourguignon, M., Jousmäki, V., Wens, V., Op de Beeck, M., Van Bogaert, P., et al. (2015). Cortical kinematic processing of executed and observed goal-directed hand actions. NeuroImage, 119, 221–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.064.Google Scholar
  65. Marwan, N., & Kurths, J. (2002). Nonlinear analysis of bivariate data with cross recurrence plots. Physics Letters, 302, 299–307.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(02)01170-2.Google Scholar
  66. Marwan, N., Wessel, N., Meyerfeldt, U., & Schirdewan, A. (2002). Recurrence-plot-based measures of complexity and their application to heart-rate-variability data. Physical Review, 66, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.66.026702.Google Scholar
  67. Matsuzaka, Y., Picard, N., & Strick, P. L. (2007). Skill representation in the primary motor cortex after long-term practice. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97, 1819–1832.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00784.2006.The.Google Scholar
  68. Meltzoff, A., & Prinz, W. (2002). The imitative mind: Development, evolution and brain bases (Vol. 12). New York: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489969.Google Scholar
  69. Melzer, A., Prinz, W., & Daum, M. M. (2012). Production and perception of contralateral reaching: A close link by 12 months of age. Infant Behavior and Development, 35(3), 570–579.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2012.05.003.Google Scholar
  70. Möller, C., Zimmer, H. D., & Aschersleben, G. (2015). Effects of short-term experience on anticipatory eye movements during action observation. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 69–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4091-x.Google Scholar
  71. Munoz, D. P., Broughton, J. R., Goldring, J. E., & Armstrong, I. T. (1998). Age-related performance of human subjects on saccadic eye movement tasks. Experimental Brain Research, 121(4), 391–400.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050473.Google Scholar
  72. Noton, D., & Stark, L. (1971). Scanpaths in eye movements during pattern perception. Science, 171(3968), 308–311.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3968.308.Google Scholar
  73. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.Google Scholar
  74. Owsley, C. (2011). Aging and vision. Vision Research, 51(13), 1610–1622.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2010.10.020.Google Scholar
  75. Park, D. C., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2009). The adaptive brain: Aging and neurocognitive scaffolding. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 173–196.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093656.Google Scholar
  76. Pfurtscheller, G., Neuper, C., Flotzinger, D., & Pregenzer, M. (1997). EEG-based discrimination between imagination of right and left hand movement. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 103(6), 642–651.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00080-1.Google Scholar
  77. Poldrack, R. A., Sabb, F. W., Foerde, K., Tom, S. M., Asarnow, R. F., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Knowlton, B. J. (2005). The neural correlates of motor skill automaticity. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25(22), 5356–5364.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3880-04.2005.Google Scholar
  78. Pratt, J., Dodd, M., & Welsh, T. (2006). Growing older does not always mean moving slower: Examining aging and the saccadic motor system. Journal of Motor Behavior, 38(5), 373–382.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.38.5.373-382.Google Scholar
  79. Press, C., Heyes, C., & Kilner, J. (2011). Learning to understand others’ actions. Biology Letters, 7(3), 457–460.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0850.Google Scholar
  80. R Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  81. Reuter, E.-M., Behrens, M., & Zschorlich, V. R. (2015). Age-related differences in corticomotor facilitation indicate dedifferentiation in motor planning. Experimental Gerontology, 65, 79–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2015.03.008.Google Scholar
  82. Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., & Park, D. C. (2014). How does it STAC up? Revisiting the scaffolding theory of aging and cognition. Neuropsychology Review, 24, 355–370.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-014-9270-9.Google Scholar
  83. Rosander, K., & von Hofsten, C. (2011). Predictive gaze shifts elicited during observed and performed actions in 10-month-old infants and adults. Neuropsychologia, 49(10), 2911–2917.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.06.018.Google Scholar
  84. Salthouse, T. A. (2005). What and when of cognitive aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 140–144.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00293.x.Google Scholar
  85. Salthouse, T. A. (2009). When does age-related cognitive decline begin? Neurobiology of Aging, 30(4), 507–514.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2008.09.023.Google Scholar
  86. Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 353–367.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01024.x.Google Scholar
  87. Seidler, R. D., & Stelmach, G. E. (1995). Reduction in sensorimotor control with age. Quest, 47(3), 386–394.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1995.10484165.Google Scholar
  88. Smith, L., & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 343–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00156-6.Google Scholar
  89. Sommerville, J. A., Hildebrand, E. A., & Crane, C. C. (2008). Experience matters: The impact of doing versus watching on infants’ subsequent perception of tool-use events. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1249–1256.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012296.Google Scholar
  90. Sommerville, J. A., Woodward, A. L., & Needham, A. (2005). Action experience alters 3-month-old infants’ perception of others’ actions. Cognition, 96, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.07.004.Google Scholar
  91. Stevens, J. A., Fonlupt, P., Shiffrar, M., & Decety, J. (2000). New aspects of motion perception: Selective neural encoding of apparent human movements. NeuroReport, 11(1), 109–115.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200001170-00022.Google Scholar
  92. Sumanapala, D. K., Fish, L. A., Jones, A. L., & Cross, E. S. (2017). Have I grooved to this before? Discriminating practised and observed actions in a novel context. Acta Psychologica, 175, 42–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.02.008.Google Scholar
  93. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  94. Vaidyanathan, P., Pelz, J., Alm, C., Shi, P., & Haake, A. (2014). Recurrence quantification analysis reveals eye-movement behavior differences between experts and novices. Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and ApplicationsETRA14.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2578153.2578207.Google Scholar
  95. van Elk, M., van Schie, H. T., Hunnius, S., Vesper, C., & Bekkering, H. (2008). You’ll never crawl alone: Neurophysiological evidence for experience-dependent motor resonance in infancy. NeuroImage, 43(4), 808–814.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.07.057.Google Scholar
  96. van Geert, P. (2011). The contribution of complex dynamic systems to development. Child Development Perspectives, 5(4), 273–278.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00197.x.Google Scholar
  97. van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005). Explaining after by before: Basic aspects of a dynamic systems approach to the study of development. Developmental Review, 25(3–4), 408–442.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.10.003.Google Scholar
  98. von Hofsten, C. (2004). An action perspective on motor development. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(6), 265–272.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.04.002.Google Scholar
  99. von Hofsten, C., & Rönnqvist, L. (1988). Preparation for grasping an object: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 610–621.Google Scholar
  100. Wermelinger, S., Gampe, A., & Daum, M. M. (2017). Higher levels of motor competence are associated with reduced interference in action perception across the lifespan. Psychological Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0941-z.Google Scholar
  101. Zbilut, J. P., & Webber, C. L. (1992). Embeddings and delays as derived from quantification of recurrence plots. Physics Letters A, 171, 199–203.Google Scholar
  102. Zelazo, P. D., Müller, U., Frye, D., & Marcowitch, S. (2003). The development of executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3), 1–151.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0911.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie Wermelinger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anja Gampe
    • 1
  • Moritz M. Daum
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Neuroscience Center ZurichUniversity of Zurich and ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations