Is social inhibition of return due to action co-representation?

Biological motion elicits between-person Inhibition of Return in temporal and spatial movement parameters

The present study was designed to gain a deeper understanding of the processing of biological motion stimuli. To this end, we investigated if the inhibition of return (IoR) effect emerges in initiation times and trajectories of pointing movements to targets in left and right space where the preceding cues were pointing movement of a human model or a dot with the same biological motion. Targets were randomly presented in the same or opposite side from the direction of the motion cue. It was hypothesised that the visuomotor system should resonate with the biological motion of a dot, but that the human model should exaggerate the effect. Thus, the human model should trigger stronger attention shifts compared with the dot model and lead to more robust IoR effects in both spatial (movement) and temporal parameters of the observer's pointing responses. Initiation times and the spatial parameters (angle of the hand trajectory) of the pointing movements were analysed. Results indicate that facilitation and IoR effects triggered by human and dot stimuli did not differ. Based on these findings, it seems that the crucial feature of motion cues that generate shifts in attention is biological motion, rather than human appearance per se.

Susceptibility to the fusion illusion is modulated during both action execution and action observation

Many researchers have proposed that when an individual observes the actions of another individual, the observer simulates the action using many of the same neural areas that are involved in action production. The present study was designed to test this simulation hypothesis by comparing the perception of multisensory stimuli during both the execution and observation of an aiming action. The present work used the fusion illusion - an audio-visual illusion in which two visual stimuli presented with one auditory stimulus are erroneously perceived as being one visual stimulus. Previous research has shown that, during action execution, susceptibly to this illusion is reduced early in the execution of the movement when visual information may be more highly weighted than other sensory information. We sought to determine whether or not a non-acting observer of an action showed a similar reduction in susceptibility to the fusion illusion. Participants fixated a target and either executed or observed a manual aiming movement to that target. Audiovisual stimuli were presented at 0, 100, or 200 ms relative to movement onset and participants reported the number of perceived flashes after the movement was completed. Analysis of perceived flashes revealed that participants were less susceptible to the fusion illusion when the stimuli were presented early (100 ms) relative to later in the movement (200 ms). Critically, this pattern emerged in both execution and observation tasks. These findings support the hypothesis that observers simulate the performance of the actor and experience comparable real-time alterations in multisensory processing.

The role of transients in action observation

A large number of studies have now described the various ways in which the observation of another person's dynamic movement can influence the speed with which the observer is able to prepare a motor action themselves. The typical results are most often explained with reference to theories that link perception and action. Such theories argue that the cognitive structures associated with each share common representations. Consequently, action preparation and action observation are often said to be functionally equivalent. However, the dominance of these theories in explaining action observation effects has masked the potential contribution from processes associated with the detection of low-level "transients" resulting from observing a body movement, such as motion and sound. In the present review, we describe work undertaken in one particular action observation phenomenon ("social inhibition of return") and show that the transient account provides the best explanation of the effect. We argue that future work should consider attention capture and orienting as a potential contributing factor to action observation effects more broadly.

Biological motion and animacy belief induce similar effects on involuntary shifts of attention

Biological motion is salient to the human visual and motor systems and may be intrinsic to the perception of animacy. Evidence for the salience of visual stimuli moving with trajectories consistent with biological motion comes from studies showing that such stimuli can trigger shifts of attention in the direction of that motion. The present study was conducted to determine whether or not top-down beliefs about animacy can modify the salience of a nonbiologically moving stimulus to the visuomotor system. A nonpredictive cuing task was used in which a white dot moved from a central location toward a left- or right-sided target placeholder. The target randomly appeared at either location 200, 600, or 1,300 ms after the motion onset. Five groups of participants experienced different stimulus conditions: (1) biological motion, (2) inverted biological motion, (3) nonbiological motion, (4) animacy belief (paired with nonbiological motion), and (5) computer-generated belief (paired with nonbiological motion). Analysis of response times revealed that the motion in the biological motion and animacy belief groups, but not in the inverted and nonbiological motion groups, affected processing of the target information. These findings indicate that biological motion is salient to the visual system and that top-down beliefs regarding the animacy of the stimulus can tune the visual and motor systems to increase the salience of nonbiological motion.

Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting

Despite considerable interest in both action perception and social attention over the last 2 decades, there has been surprisingly little investigation concerning how the manual actions of other humans orient visual attention. The present review draws together studies that have measured the orienting of attention, following observation of another's goal-directed action. Our review proposes that, in line with the literature on eye gaze, action is a particularly strong orienting cue for the visual system. However, we additionally suggest that action may orient visual attention using mechanisms, which gaze direction does not (i.e., neural direct mapping and corepresentation). Finally, we review the implications of these gaze-independent mechanisms for the study of attention to action. We suggest that our understanding of attention to action may benefit from being studied in the context of joint action paradigms, where the role of higher level action goals and social factors can be investigated.

"Two Minds Don't Blink Alike": The Attentional Blink Does Not Occur in a Joint Context

Typically, when two individuals perform a task together, each partner monitors the other partners' responses and goals to ensure that the task is completed efficiently. This monitoring is thought to involve a co-representation of the joint goals and task, as well as a simulation of the partners' performance. Evidence for such "co-representation" of goals and task, and "simulation" of responses has come from numerous visual attention studies in which two participants complete different components of the same task. In the present research, an adaptation of the attentional blink task was used to determine if co-representation could exert an influence over the associated attentional mechanisms. Participants completed a rapid serial visual presentation task in which they first identified a target letter (T1) and then detected the presence of the letter X (T2) presented one to seven letters after T1. In the individual condition, the participant identified T1 and then detected T2. In the joint condition, one participant identified T1 and the other participant detected T2. Across two experiments, an attentional blink (decreased accuracy in detecting T2 when presented three letters after T1) was observed in the individual condition, but not in joint conditions. A joint attentional blink may not emerge because the co-representation mechanisms that enable joint action exert a stronger influence at information processing stages that do not overlap with those that lead to the attentional blink.

Bimanual joint action: correlated timing or "bimanual" movements accomplished by two people

A crew of two rowing together in perfect synchrony is an example of a task that requires each performer to maintain meticulous timing when coordinating their movements with the other. At the individual level, temporal coordination of the limbs has been observed in bimanual pointing movements even when made to targets of different distance. Timing of the arms is not independent; rather there is a natural temporal coupling. The aim of this experiment was to investigate whether the temporal characteristics of pointing movements can be observed under joint conditions. Sixteen pairs of participants made short and long, unimanual and bimanual pointing movements. In the unimanual and bimanual solo conditions, participants made the movements alone. In the joint condition, each participant contributed one arm to the joint "bimanual" movements. Absolute temporal coupling at movement initiation and termination was measured by the differences in reaction time and total response time. Relative temporal coupling at movement initiation and termination was measured by correlating reaction time and total response time of the left and right limbs. Pointing movements had synchronous movement termination in the bimanual solo conditions and asynchronous termination in the unimanual solo and bimanual joint conditions. The initiation and termination of the arms were not correlated in the unimanual solo condition (initiation r = 0.01, termination r = 0.03). Small-to-medium correlations (r = 0.19, r = 0.24) were observed in the bimanual joint condition, and they were larger than the unimanual solo condition (p = 0.022, p = 0.063). As expected, there were large correlations in the bimanual solo conditions (r = 0.91, r = 0.81). Our findings suggest that absolute temporal coupling does not occur between individuals, but there is evidence for relative temporal coupling in the bimanual joint condition.

Social Beliefs and Visual Attention: How the Social Relevance of a Cue Influences Spatial Orienting

We are highly tuned to each other's visual attention. Perceiving the eye or hand movements of another person can influence the timing of a saccade or the reach of our own. However, the explanation for such spatial orienting in interpersonal contexts remains disputed. Is it due to the social appearance of the cue—a hand or an eye—or due to its social relevance—a cue that is connected to another person with attentional and intentional states? We developed an interpersonal version of the Posner spatial cueing paradigm. Participants saw a cue and detected a target at the same or a different location, while interacting with an unseen partner. Participants were led to believe that the cue was either connected to the gaze location of their partner or was generated randomly by a computer (Experiment 1), and that their partner had higher or lower social rank while engaged in the same or a different task (Experiment 2). We found that spatial cue‐target compatibility effects were greater when the cue related to a partner's gaze. This effect was amplified by the partner's social rank, but only when participants believed their partner was engaged in the same task. Taken together, this is strong evidence in support of the idea that spatial orienting is interpersonally attuned to the social relevance of the cue—whether the cue is connected to another person, who this person is, and what this person is doing—and does not exclusively rely on the social appearance of the cue. Visual attention is not only guided by the physical salience of one's environment but also by the mental representation of its social relevance.

A role of goals for social inhibition of return?

The social inhibition of return (sIOR) effect refers to the finding that response initiation times are longer if a movement is executed to a location where another person has responded to just before. Previous studies have examined the influence of the goal of the action on sIOR. In these studies, however, the movement endpoint and to-be-attained goal (e.g., touching/pressing a response key) were at the same spatial location. In the present two experiments, we disentangled movement endpoint and goal's identity and locations by means of introducing action effects that followed directly from a movement. Similar methods were previously shown powerful enough to clearly show the importance of action goals for other phenomena—a finding consistent with effect-based theories of action control, such as the ideomotor theory. The results of the present study revealed that sIOR was shaped by the movement endpoint location, not the goal's identity or location. That is, in both experiments, an sIOR effect was observed, but the magnitude of the sIOR effect was not modulated by repetitions/switches of goals or their locations. Thus, results indicate that goals play a negligible role in the emergence of the sIOR and, consequently, highlight the importance of action observation for the emergence of the sIOR effect.

The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: On the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects

Previous studies observed compatibility effects in different interference paradigms such as the Simon and flanker task even when the task was distributed across two co-actors. In both Simon and flanker tasks, performance is improved in compatible trials relative to incompatible trials if one actor works on the task alone as well as if two co-actors share the task. These findings have been taken to indicate that actors automatically co-represent their co-actor's task. However, recent research on the joint Simon and joint flanker effect suggests alternative non-social interpretations. To which degree both joint effects are driven by the same underlying processes is the question of the present study, and it was scrutinized by manipulating the visibility of the co-actor. While the joint Simon effect was not affected by the visibility of the co-actor, the joint flanker effect was reduced when participants did not see their co-actors but knew where the co-actors were seated. These findings provide further evidence for a spatial interpretation of the joint Simon effect. In contrast to recent claims, however, we propose a new explanation of the joint flanker effect that attributes the effect to an impairment in the focusing of spatial attention contingent on the visibility of the co-actor.

Altered social attention in anorexia nervosa during real social interaction

The capacity to devote attentional resources in response to body-related signals provided by others is still largely unexplored in individuals with Anorexia Nervosa (AN). Here, we tested this capacity through a novel paradigm that mimics a social interaction with a real partner. Healthy individuals (Experiment 1) and individuals with AN (Experiment 2) completed a task with another person which consisted in performing, alternatively, rapid aiming movements to lateralised targets. Generally, this task leads to a form of Inhibition of Return (IOR), which consists of longer reaction times when an individual has to respond to a location previously searched by either himself (individual IOR) or by the partner (social IOR) as compared to previously unexplored locations. IOR is considered as an important attentional mechanism that promotes an effective exploration of the environment during social interaction. Here, healthy individuals displayed both individual and social IOR that were both reliable and of the same magnitude. Individuals with AN displayed a non-significant individual IOR but a reliable social IOR that was also significantly stronger than individual IOR. These results suggest the presence of a reduced sensitivity in processing body-related stimuli conveyed by oneself in individuals with AN which is reflected in action-based attentional processes.

Joint attention for stimuli on the hands: ownership matters

The visual system treats the space near the hands with unique, action-related priorities. For example, attention orients slowly to stimuli on the hands (Taylor and Witt, 2014). In this article, we asked whether jointly attended hands are attended in the same way. Specifically, we examined whether ownership over the hand mattered: do we attend to our hands and the hands of others in the same way? Pairs of participants performed a spatial cueing task with stimuli that could be projected onto one partner’s hands or on a control surface. Results show delayed orienting of attention to targets appearing on the hands, but only for the owner of the hands. For an observer, others’ hands are like any other surface. This result emphasizes the importance of ownership for hand-based effects on vision, and in doing so, is inconsistent with some expectations of the joint action literature.