Motor invariants in action execution and perception

Excitatory/inhibitory motor balance reflects individual differences during joint action coordination

Joint action (JA) is a continuous process of motor co-regulation based on the integration of contextual (top-down) and kinematic (bottom-up) cues from partners. The fine equilibrium between excitation and inhibition in sensorimotor circuits is, thus, central to such a dynamic process of action selection and execution. In a bimanual task adapted to become a unimanual JA task, the participant held a bottle (JA), while a confederate had to reach and unscrew either that bottle or another stabilized by a mechanical clamp (No_JA). Prior knowledge was manipulated in each trial such that the participant knew (K) or not (No_K) the target bottle in advance. Online transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was administered at action-relevant landmarks to explore corticospinal excitability (CSE) and inhibition (cortical silent period [cSP]). CSE was modulated early on before the action started if prior information was available. In contrast, cSP modulation emerged later during the reaching action, regardless of prior information. These two indexes could thus reflect the concurrent elaboration of contextual priors (top-down) and the online sampling of partner's kinematic cues (bottom-up). Furthermore, participants selected either one of two possible behavioural strategies, preferring early or late force exertion on the bottle. One translates into a reduced risk of motor coordination failure and the other into reduced metabolic expenditure. Each strategy was characterised by a specific excitatory/inhibitory profile. In conclusion, the study of excitatory/inhibitory balance paves the way for the neurophysiological determination of individual differences in the combination of top-down and bottom-up processing during JA coordination.

Invariant representations in abstract concept grounding - the physical world in grounded cognition

Grounded cognition states that mental representations of concepts consist of experiential aspects. For example, the concept "cup" consists of the sensorimotor experiences from interactions with cups. Typical modalities in which concepts are grounded are: The sensorimotor system (including interoception), emotion, action, language, and social aspects. Here, we argue that this list should be expanded to include physical invariants (unchanging features of physical motion; e.g., gravity, momentum, friction). Research on physical reasoning consistently demonstrates that physical invariants are represented as fundamentally as other grounding substrates, and therefore should qualify. We assess several theories of concept representation (simulation, conceptual metaphor, conceptual spaces, predictive processing) and their positions on physical invariants. We find that the classic grounded cognition theories, simulation and conceptual metaphor theory, have not considered physical invariants, while conceptual spaces and predictive processing have. We conclude that physical invariants should be included into grounded cognition theories, and that the core mechanisms of simulation and conceptual metaphor theory are well suited to do this. Furthermore, conceptual spaces and predictive processing are very promising and should also be integrated with grounded cognition in the future.

Submovement interpersonal coupling is associated to audio-motor coordination performance

Acting in concert with others, a key aspect of our social life, requires behavioral coordination between persons on multiple timescales. When zooming in on the kinematic properties of movements, it appears that small speed fluctuations, called submovements, are embedded within otherwise smooth end-point trajectories. Submovements, by occurring at a faster timescale than that of movements, offer a novel window upon the functional relationship between distinct motor timescales. In this regard, it has previously been shown that when partners visually synchronize their movements, they also coordinate the timing of their submovement by following an alternated pattern. However, it remains unclear whether the mechanisms behind submovement coordination are domain-general or specific to the visual modality, and whether they have relevance for interpersonal coordination also at the scale of whole movements. In a series of solo and dyadic tasks, we show that submovements are also present and coordinated across partners when sensorimotor interactions are mediated by auditory feedback only. Importantly, the accuracy of task-instructed interpersonal coordination at the movement level correlates with the strength of submovement coordination. These results demonstrate that submovement coordination is a potentially fundamental mechanism that participates in interpersonal motor coordination regardless of the sensory domain mediating the interaction.

The microstructure of intra- and interpersonal coordination

Movements are naturally composed of submovements, i.e. recurrent speed pulses (2-3 Hz), possibly reflecting intermittent feedback-based motor adjustments. In visuomotor (unimanual) synchronization tasks, partners alternate submovements over time, indicating mutual coregulation. However, it is unclear whether submovement coordination is organized differently between and within individuals. Indeed, different types of information may be variably exploited for intrapersonal and interpersonal coordination. Participants performed a series of bimanual tasks alone or in pairs, with or without visual feedback (solo task only). We analysed the relative timing of submovements between their own hands or between their own hands and those of their partner. Distinct coordinative structures emerged at the submovement level depending on the relevance of visual feedback. Specifically, the relative timing of submovements (between partners/effectors) shifts from alternation to simultaneity and a mixture of both when coordination is achieved using vision (interpersonal), proprioception/efference-copy only (intrapersonal, without vision) or all information sources (intrapersonal, with vision), respectively. These results suggest that submovement coordination represents a behavioural proxy for the adaptive weighting of different sources of information within action-perception loops. In sum, the microstructure of movement reveals common principles governing the dynamics of sensorimotor control to achieve both intra- and interpersonal coordination.