Does watching Han Solo or C-3PO similarly influence our language processing?

  • Sophie-Anne Beauprez
  • Christel Bidet-IldeiEmail author
  • Kazuo Hiraki
Original Article


Several studies have demonstrated that perceiving an action influences the subsequent processing of action verbs. However, which characteristics of the perceived action are truly determinant to enable this influence is still unknown. The current study investigated the role of the agent executing an action in this action–language relationship. Participants performed a semantic decision task after seeing a video of a human or a robot performing an action. The results of the first study showed that perceiving a human being executing an action as well as perceiving a robot facilitate subsequent language processing, suggesting that the humanness (The term “humanness” is used as meaning “belonging to human race” and not to refer to a personal quality) of the agent is not crucial in the link between action and language. However, this experiment was conducted with Japanese people who are very familiar with robots; thus, an alternative explanation could be that it is the unfamiliarity with the agent that could perturb the action–language relationship. To assess this hypothesis, we carried out two additional experiments with French participants. The results of the second study showed that, unlike the observation of a human agent, the observation of a robot did not influence language processing. Finally, the results of the third study showed that, after a familiarization phase, French participants too were influenced by the observation of a robot. Overall, the outcomes of these studies indicate that, more than the humanness of the agent, it is the familiarity which we have with this agent that is crucial in the action–language relationship.



This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Experiment 1 was conducted during an in-doc by Sophie-Anne Beauprez at the University of Tokyo. We would like to thank Yoshida Fumiaki and Masaoka Shiori for their help in the experiment development, the recruitment of the participants, and data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

The experiments were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration.


  1. Amoruso, L., & Urgesi, C. (2016). Familiarity modulates motor activation while other species’ actions are observed: A magnetic stimulation study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 43(6), 765–772. Scholar
  2. Anelli, F., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2014). Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(4), 1627–1639. Scholar
  3. Aravena, P., et al. (2012). Grip force reveals the context sensitivity of language-induced motor activity during “action words” processing: Evidence from sentential negation. PLoS One, 7(12), e50287. Scholar
  4. Arita, A., Hiraki, K., Kanda, T., & Ishiguro, H. (2005). Can we talk to robots? Ten-month-old infants expected interactive humanoid robots to be talked to by persons. Cognition, 95(3), B49B57. Scholar
  5. Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Damasio, A. (2008). Embodied semantics for actions: Findings from functional brain imaging. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 102(1), 3539. Scholar
  6. Aziz-Zadeh, L., Wilson, S. M., Rizzolatti, G., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology, 16(18), 18181823. Scholar
  7. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(04), 577–609. Scholar
  8. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. Scholar
  9. Beauprez, S.-A., & Bidet-Ildei, C. (2017). Perceiving a biological human movement facilitates action verb processing. Current Psychology. Scholar
  10. Beauprez, S.-A., & Bidet-Ildei, C. (2018). The kinematics but not the orientation of an action influences language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(11), 1712–1726. Scholar
  11. Beauprez, S.-A., Toussaint, L., & Bidet-Ildei, C. (2018). When context modulates the influence of action observation on language processing. PLoS One, 13(8), 1–12. Scholar
  12. Bidet-Ildei, C., Méary, D., & Orliaguet, J.-P. (2006). Visual perception of elliptic movements in 7- to-11-year-old children: Influence of motor rules. Current Psychology Letters. Behaviour, Brain & Cognition, 19(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  13. Bidet-Ildei, C., Meugnot, A., Beauprez, S.-A., Gimenes, M., & Toussaint, L. (2017). Short-term upper limb immobilization affects action-word understanding. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1129–1139. Scholar
  14. Bidet-Ildei, C., Sparrow, L., & Coello, Y. (2011). Reading action word affects the visual perception of biological motion. Acta Psychologica, 137(3), 330334. Scholar
  15. Bisio, A., Sciutti, A., Nori, F., Metta, G., Fadiga, L., et al. (2014). Motor contagion during human–human and human–robot interaction. PLoS One, 9(8), e106172. Scholar
  16. Boulenger, V., et al.(2006). Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 16071615. Scholar
  17. Calvo-Merino, B., Glaser, D. E., Grèzes, J., Passingham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2005). Action observation and acquired motor skills: An FMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15(8), 12431249. Scholar
  18. Chaminade, T., & Cheng, G. (2009). Social cognitive neuroscience and humanoid robotics. Journal of Physiology-Paris, 103(3–5), 286–295. Scholar
  19. Chaminade, T., Hodgins, J., & Kawato, M. (2007). Anthropomorphism influences perception of computer-animated characters’ actions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(3), 206. Scholar
  20. Cross, E. S., Kraemer, D. J. M., de Hamilton, A. F. C., Kelley, W. M., & Grafton, S. T. (2009). Sensitivity of the action observation network to physical and observational learning. Cerebral Cortex, 19(2), 315326. Scholar
  21. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gazzola, V., Rizzolatti, G., Wicker, B., & Keysers, C. (2007a). The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. NeuroImage, 35(4), 16741684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gazzola, V., et al. (2007b). Aplasics born without hands mirror the goal of hand actions with their feet. Current Biology, 17(14), 12351240. Scholar
  24. Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558–565. Scholar
  25. Gutsell, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 841845. Scholar
  26. Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301307. Scholar
  27. Hofer, T., Hauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2005). Infant’s perception of goal-directed actions performed by a mechanical device. Infant Behavior and Development, 28(4), 1–11. Scholar
  28. Iacoboni, M., et al. (2005). Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system. PLoS Biology, 3(3), e79. Scholar
  29. Kandel, S., Orliaguet, J. P., & Viviani, P. (2000). Perceptual anticipation in handwriting: The role of implicit motor competence. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(4), 706716. Scholar
  30. Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S. J. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13(6), 522–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klepp, A., et al. (2014). Neuromagnetic hand and foot motor sources recruited during action verb processing. Brain and Language, 128(1), 4152. Scholar
  32. Kuipers, J.-R., van Koningsbruggen, M., & Thierry, G. (2013). Semantic priming in the motor cortex: Evidence from combined repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and event-related potential. Neuroreport, 24(12), 646651. Scholar
  33. Kupferberg, A., Huber, M., Helfer, B., Lenz, C., Knoll, A., Glasauer, S., et al. (2012). Moving just like you: motor interference depends on similar motility of agent and observer. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e39637. Scholar
  34. Liepelt, R., Dolk, T., & Prinz, W. (2012). Bidirectional semantic interference between action and speech. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(4), 446455. Scholar
  35. Liew, S.-L., Han, S., & Aziz-Zadeh, L. (2011). Familiarity modulates mirror neuron and mentalizing regions during intention understanding. Human Brain Mapping, 32(11), 198697. Scholar
  36. Lindemann, O., Stenneken, P., van Schie, H. T., & Bekkering, H. (2006). Semantic activation in action planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 633643. Scholar
  37. Lyons, I. M., et al. (2010). The role of personal experience in the neural processing of action-related language. Brain and Language, 112(3), 214222. Scholar
  38. MacDorman, K. F., Vasudevan, S. K., & Ho, C.-C. (2009). Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures. AI & Society, 23(4), 485510. Scholar
  39. Martel, L., Bidet-Ildei, C., & Coello, Y. (2011). Anticipating the terminal position of an observed action: Effect of kinematic, structural, and identity information. Visual Cognition, 19(6), 785798. Scholar
  40. Matsuda, G., Hiraki, K., & Ishiguro, H. (2015). EEG-based Mu rhythm suppression to measure the effects of appearance and motion on perceived human likeness of a robot. Journal of Human–Robot Interaction, 5(1), 68–81. Scholar
  41. Mollo, G., Pulvermüller, F., & Hauk, O. (2016). Movement priming of EEG/MEG brain responses for action-words characterizes the link between language and action. Cortex, 74, 262276. Scholar
  42. Nomura, T., Kanda, T., & Suzuki, T. (2006). Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. AI & Society, 20(2), 138150. Scholar
  43. Nomura, T. T., Syrdal, D. S., & Dautenhahn, K. (2015). Differences on social acceptance of humanoid robots between Japan and the UK. In Proceedings of 4th international symposium on new frontiers in human–robot interaction. The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AISB), Canterbury, United Kingdom (pp. 115–120).Google Scholar
  44. Oberman, L., McCleery, J., Ramachandran, V., & Pineda, J. (2007). EEG evidence for mirror neuron activity during the observation of human and robot actions: Toward an analysis of the human qualities of interactive robots. Neurocomputing, 70(1315), 21942203. Scholar
  45. Pavlova, M. A., Krägeloh-Mann, I., Birbaumer, N., & Sokolov, A. (2002). Biological motion shown backwards: The apparent-facing effect. Perception, 31(4), 435443. Scholar
  46. Press, C., Bird, G., Flach, R., & Heyes, C. (2005). Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(3), 632640. Scholar
  47. Press, C., Gillmeister, H., & Heyes, C. (2006). Bottom-up, not top-down, modulation of imitation by human and robotic models. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24(8), 2415–2419. Scholar
  48. Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 6(7), 576582. Scholar
  49. Ranzini, M., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2011). With hands I do not centre! Action- and object-related effects of hand-cueing in the line bisection. Neuropsychologia. Scholar
  50. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169192. Scholar
  51. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 2(9), 661670. Scholar
  52. Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado Bou, M. A., del Pobil, A. P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: Corepresentation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1073–1077. Scholar
  53. Tai, Y., Scherfler, C., Brooks, D., Sawamoto, N., & Castiello, U. (2004). The human premotor cortex is “Mirror” only for biological actions. Current Biology, 14(2), 117120. Scholar
  54. Wykowska, A., Wiese, E., Prosser, A., & Müller, H. J. (2014). Beliefs about the minds of others influence how we process sensory information. PLoS One, 9(4), e94339. Scholar
  55. Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 135(1), 111. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Poitiers, Université de Tours, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l’Apprentissage (UMR 7295)PoitiersFrance
  2. 2.Department of Systems Science, Graduate School of Arts and SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations