Performing online complementary motor adjustments is quintessential to joint actions since it allows interacting people to coordinate efficiently and achieve a common goal. We sought to determine whether, during dyadic interactions, signaling strategies and simulative processes are differentially implemented on the basis of the interactional role played by each partner. To this aim, we recorded the kinematics of the right hand of pairs of individuals who were asked to grasp as synchronously as possible a bottle-shaped object according to an imitative or complementary action schedule. Task requirements implied an asymmetric role assignment so that participants performed the task acting either as (1) Leader (i.e., receiving auditory information regarding the goal of the task with indications about where to grasp the object) or (2) Follower (i.e., receiving instructions to coordinate their movements with their partner's by performing imitative or complementary actions). Results showed that, when acting as Leader, participants used signaling strategies to enhance the predictability of their movements. In particular, they selectively emphasized kinematic parameters and reduced movement variability to provide the partner with implicit cues regarding the action to be jointly performed. Thus, Leaders make their movements more "communicative" even when not explicitly instructed to do so. Moreover, only when acting in the role of Follower did participants tend to imitate the Leader, even in complementary actions where imitation is detrimental to joint performance. Our results show that mimicking and signaling are implemented in joint actions according to the interactional role of the agent, which in turn is reflected in the kinematics of each partner.

Non-verbal communication is the basis of animal interactions. In dyadic leaderfollower interactions, leaders master the ability to carve their motor behaviour in order to 'signal' their future actions and internal plans while these signals influence the behaviour of follower partners, who automatically tend to imitate the leader even in complementary interactions. Despite their usefulness, signalling and imitation have a biomechanical cost, and it is unclear how this cost-benefits trade-off is managed during repetitive dyadic interactions that present learnable regularities. We studied signalling and imitation dynamics (indexed by movement kinematics) in pairs of leaders and followers during a repetitive, rule-based, joint action. Trial-by-trial Bayesian model comparison was used to evaluate the relation between signalling, imitation and pair performance. The different models incorporate different hypotheses concerning the factors (past interactions versus online movements) influencing the leader's signalling (or follower's imitation) kinematics. This approach showed that (i) leaders' signalling strategy improves future couple performance, (ii) leaders used the history of past interactions to shape their signalling, (iii) followers' imitative behaviour is more strongly affected by the online movement of the leader. This study elucidates the ways online sensorimotor communication help individuals align their task representations and ultimately improves joint action performance.

What mechanisms distinguish interactive from non-interactive actions? To answer this question we tested participants while they took turns playing music with a virtual partner: in the interactive joint action condition, the participants played a melody together with their partner by grasping (C note) or pressing (G note) a cube-shaped instrument, alternating in playing one note each. In the non-interactive control condition, players’ behavior was not guided by a shared melody, so that the partner’s actions and notes were irrelevant to the participant. In both conditions, the participant’s and partner’s actions were physically congruent (e.g., grasp-grasp) or incongruent (e.g., grasp-point), and the partner’s association between actions and notes was coherent with the participant’s or reversed. Performance in the non-interactive condition was only affected by physical incongruence, whereas joint action was only affected when the partner’s action-note associations were reversed. This shows that task interactivity shapes the sensorimotor coding of others’ behaviors, and that joint action is based on active prediction of the partner’s action effects rather than on passive action imitation. We suggest that such predictions are based on Dyadic Motor Plans that represent both the agent’s and the partner’s contributions to the interaction goal, like playing a melody together.