Index of difficulty and side of space are accommodated during the selection and planning of a joint action

Chimpanzees demonstrate a behavioural signature of human joint action

The strength of human society can largely be attributed to the tendency to work together to achieve outcomes that are not possible alone. Effective social coordination benefits from mentally representing a partner's actions. Specifically, humans optimize social coordination by forming internal action models adapted to joint rather than individual task demands. To what extent do humans share the cognitive mechanisms that support optimal human coordination and collaboration with other species? An ecologically inspired joint handover-to-retrieve task was systematically manipulated across several experiments to assess whether joint action planning in chimpanzees reflects similar patterns to humans. Chimpanzees' chosen handover locations shifted towards the location of the experimenter's free or unobstructed hand, suggesting they represent the constraints of the joint task even though their individual half of the task was unobstructed. These findings indicate that chimpanzees and humans may share common cognitive mechanisms or predispositions that support joint action.

Computing Joint Action Costs: Co-Actors Minimize the Aggregate Individual Costs in an Action Sequence

Successful performance in cooperative activities relies on efficient task distribution between co-actors. Previous research found that people often forgo individual efficiency in favor of co-efficiency (i.e., joint-cost minimization) when planning a joint action. The present study investigated the cost computations underlying co-efficient decisions. We report a series of experiments that tested the hypothesis that people compute the joint costs of a cooperative action sequence by summing the individual action costs of their co-actor and themselves. We independently manipulated the parameters quantifying individual and joint action costs and tested their effects on decision making by fitting and comparing Bayesian logistic regression models. Our hypothesis was confirmed: people weighed their own and their partner’s costs similarly to estimate the joint action costs as the sum of the two individual parameters. Participants minimized the aggregate cost to ensure co-efficiency. The results provide empirical support for behavioral economics and computational approaches that formalize cooperation as joint utility maximization based on a weighted sum of individual action costs.

End in view: Joint end-state comfort depends on gaze and extraversion

This study investigated how humans adapt to a partner's movement in a joint pick-and-place task and examined the role of gaze behavior and personality traits in adapting to a partner. Two participants sitting side-by-side transported a cup from one end of a table to the other. The participant sitting on the left (the agent) moved the cup to an intermediate position from where the participant sitting on the right (the partner) transported it to a goal position with varying orientations. Hand, finger, cup movements and gaze behavior were recorded synchronously via motion tracking and portable eye tracking devices. Results showed interindividual differences in the extent of the agents' motor adaptation to the joint action goal, which were accompanied by differences in gaze patterns. The longer agents directed their gaze to a cue indicating the goal orientation, the more they adapted the rotation of the cup's handle when placing it at the intermediate position. Personality trait assessment showed that higher extraverted tendencies to strive for social potency went along with more adaptation to the joint goal. These results indicate that agents who consider their partner's end-state comfort use their gaze to gather more information about the joint action goal compared to agents who do not. Moreover, the disposition to enjoy leadership and make decisions in interpersonal situations seems to play a role in determining who adapts to a partner's task in joint action.

Efficiency is prioritised over fairness when distributing joint actions

Individuals have a drive towards maximising action efficiency, which is reflected in action choices that minimise movement costs to reach a goal. In joint actions, actors prioritise joint efficiency or coefficiency, maximising the utility of the joint action even if this comes at a cost to themselves. However, it remains an open question whether actors are willing to unilaterally sacrifice their partner's individual efficiency for the greater good, when forcing a partner to incur additional costs may be interpreted as unfair. In two experiments we explored how participants would choose to distribute a motor task that required either a fair or an unfair distribution of labour. We found that, both whether there was opportunity for reciprocity (Experiment 1) or not (Experiment 2), participants maximised the coefficiency of their joint actions, regardless of how unfair this distribution of labour proved to be regarding the individual action costs. Taken together, our results suggest participants use a rational decision-making framework that prioritises overall efficiency over both individual efficiency and a consideration of fairness.

Age-group differences in beginning-state comfort reveal an increase in motor planning capabilities

Objects can be grasped in different ways to ensure a movement plan is aligned with the intended action. The current study assessed grasp posture in joint action object manipulation in children (ages 6–11, n = 68), young adults ( n = 21), and older adults ( n = 23). Participants performed two actions (pickup and pass; pickup and pass for use) within two movement contexts (using a dowel as if it were the actual object; actual object use), using two objects (glass and hammer) that differed in use-dependent experience. Beginning-state comfort (prioritizing a comfortable initial hand posture for an object recipient) was assessed. Taken together, findings support the notion that the ability to anticipate the intended action, and thus consider an action partner in one’s action plan, increases with age. With age and use-dependent experience, it can be argued that there is a shift from stimulus-driven, familiar responses, to considering affordances and task demands. Together, findings add to our understanding of changes in motor planning capabilities across the life span.

Rationality in Joint Action: Maximizing Coefficiency in Coordination

When people perform simple actions, they often behave efficiently, minimizing the costs of movement for the expected benefit. The present study addressed the question of whether this efficiency scales up to dyads working together to achieve a shared goal: Do people act efficiently as a group (i.e., coefficiently), or do they minimize their own or their partner's individual costs even if this increases the overall cost for the group? We devised a novel, touch-screen-based, sequential object-transfer task to measure how people choose between different paths to coordinate with a partner. Across multiple experiments, we found that participants did not simply minimize their own or their partner's movement costs but made coefficient decisions about paths, which ensured that the aggregate costs of movement for the dyad were minimized. These results suggest that people are able and motivated to make coefficient, collectively rational decisions when acting together.

"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.

Multiple Frames of Reference Are Used During the Selection and Planning of a Sequential Joint Action

Co-actors need to anticipate each other's actions to successfully perform joint actions. The frames of reference (FOR) used to simulate a co-actor's action could impact what information is anticipated. We hypothesized that co-actor's would adopt their co-actor's body-centered FOR, even when they do not share the same spatial orientation, so that they could anticipate body-related aspects of their co-actor's task. Because it might be beneficial to plan joint actions based on environment and body-centered information, we hypothesized that individuals would utilize multiple FORs during response planning. To test these hypotheses, participants performed a sequential aiming task where the goal was to move a wooden dowel to one of four potential targets as quickly and accurately as possible. A cue was presented at the beginning of each trial that was either 25, 50, or 75% valid. Following the cue presentation, the first person to act (initiator) placed the wooden dowel, anywhere they liked, in the workspace. Then, the finisher performed their aiming movement from the location that the initiator had placed the dowel. The key dependent measure was the dowel placement of the initiator because it provided an index of how much the initiator attempted to facilitate the efficient performance of the finisher. The results revealed that individuals adopted an allocentric FOR (dowel placement was more biased toward cued locations as cue validity increased) and partially adopted their co-actor's body-centered FOR (dowel placement was biased toward the finisher's body, but not toward the co-actor's contralateral space). In conclusion, multiple FORs can be used to anticipate both body- and environment-related information of a co-actor's task. It may be difficult, however, for individuals to fully adopt their co-actor's body-centered FOR when they have differing orientations.