Adaptation aftereffects reveal representations for encoding of contingent social actions

Fedorov, Leonid; Chang, D-S; Giese, Martin A.; Bülthoff, Heinrich H.; Rosa, S de la

doi:10.1073/pnas.1801364115

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that out of the two investigated factors, it is movement contingency rather than spatial context which affects the perception of nonverbal communicative interactions. This is in accordance with past implications of the importance of movement contingency for communicative interactions [Centelles, Assaiante, Nazarian, Anton, & Schmitz, 2011;Fedorov, Chang, Giese, Bülthoff, & De la Rosa, 2018;Georgescu et al, 2014;Manera, Del Giudice, et al, 2011;Quadflieg & Koldewyn, 2017]. Both, accuracy and consistency of power judgments, were affected by the contingency manipulation; however, in different ways: On the one hand the non-contingent conditions increased accuracy, but they decreased consistency on the other.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Given that a recent meta‐analysis by Ferraro [] found no evidence for a generally slower cognitive processing style in ASD, we interpret the current finding as showing that social cognitive processing requires additional effort and a more “explicit” reasoning from individuals with ASD as opposed to a more “implicit” and “immediate” perception in TD persons. In this line, a recent study by Fedorov et al [] argues that, in TD individuals, there is a specialized representation for encoding contingent social interaction. The authors speculate that this representation is impaired in ASD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Inferring power and dominance from dyadic nonverbal interactions in autism spectrum disorder

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research studies to date have revealed conflicting results with respect to the processing of nonverbal cues from social interactions in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the contribution of two important factors for the perception of dyadic social interactions, namely (a) the movement contingency and (b) the spatial context. To this end, 26 adult participants with ASD and 26 age‐, sex‐, and IQ‐matched typically developed control participants observed animations presenting nonverbal interactions between two human virtual characters enacting power relationships. We manipulated (a) movement contingency by exchanging one of the two original agents with an agent from another dyad and (b) spatial context by changing agents' spatial orientation to a back‐to‐back position. Participants were asked to rate dominance and submissiveness of these agents. Results showed that the movement contingency manipulation affected accuracy and consistency of power perception and that the spatial context manipulation slowed down reaction times comparably in both groups. With regard to group differences, individuals with ASD were found to judge power relationships slower compared to control participants, potentially suggesting a more explicit processing style in ASD. Furthermore, the spatial context manipulation slowed down the reaction times more in the contingent compared to the non‐contingent conditions only in the ASD group. These findings contribute to the ongoing debate whether individuals with ASD have difficulties in understanding nonverbal cues in a dyadic context by suggesting that they do so in more subtle ways than previously investigated. Autism Res 2019, 12: 505–516 © 2019 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Lay Summary This study shows that the ability and speed of judging who is dominant in a social interaction depends on two factors: (a) whether their movements are matched and (b) whether they are facing each other or not. This is similarly the case for participants with and without autism. Interestingly, however, individuals with autism seem to judge generally slower, suggesting a more explicit processing style. The two factors seem to interact, suggesting that nonverbal processing difficulties are subtler than previously thought.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferring power and dominance from dyadic nonverbal interactions in autism spectrum disorder

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recognizing action intentions is thus necessary to ensure that interactive behavior is coordinated in space and time [ 1 ]. Typically, this task is mastered effortlessly in our everyday lives, for instance, every time when we have to reciprocate a greeting of another person or when we have to reach for an object that is offered to us [ 2 ]. According to motor simulation theories, observation of an action activates the corresponding motor program in the observer’s motor system and thus enables action recognition (for an overview see [ 3 ]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Angry facial expressions bias towards aversive actions

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social interaction requires fast and efficient processing of another person’s intentions. In face-to-face interactions, aversive or appetitive actions typically co-occur with emotional expressions, allowing an observer to anticipate action intentions. In the present study, we investigated the influence of facial emotions on the processing of action intentions. Thirty-two participants were presented with video clips showing virtual agents displaying a facial emotion (angry vs. happy) while performing an action (punch vs. fist-bump) directed towards the observer. During each trial, video clips stopped at varying durations of the unfolding action, and participants had to recognize the presented action. Naturally, participants’ recognition accuracy improved with increasing duration of the unfolding actions. Interestingly, while facial emotions did not influence accuracy, there was a significant influence on participants’ action judgements. Participants were more likely to judge a presented action as a punch when agents showed an angry compared to a happy facial emotion. This effect was more pronounced in short video clips, showing only the beginning of an unfolding action, than in long video clips, showing near-complete actions. These results suggest that facial emotions influence anticipatory processing of action intentions allowing for fast and adaptive responses in social interactions.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, dyadic social interactions were found to be stored in the working memory as a single chunk of information (Ding et al, 2017 ). It has been proposed that dyadic social interactions are bounded in unified representations providing an “initial perceptual framework” (Fedorov et al, 2018 ; Vestner et al, 2019 ), and thus the additional cues derived from temporal and behavioral congruence between observed individuals allow for increased sensitivity to COM presented in a dyadic context. This phenomenon, termed interpersonal predictive coding, is believed to stem from coupling between social perception and action observation networks and top-down expectations of specific responses to communicative gestures that shape bottom-up perceptual processes (Manera, Becchio, et al, 2011 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Means Together? Effects of Response Bias and Sensitivity on Communicative Action Detection

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous lines of research suggest that communicative dyadic actions elicit preferential processing and more accurate detection compared to similar but individual actions. However, it is unclear whether the presence of the second agent provides additional cues that allow for more accurate discriminability between communicative and individual intentions or whether it lowers the threshold for perceiving third-party encounters as interactive. We performed a series of studies comparing the recognition of communicative actions from single and dyadic displays in healthy individuals. A decreased response threshold for communicative actions was observed for dyadic vs. single-agent animations across all three studies, providing evidence for the dyadic communicative bias. Furthermore, consistent with the facilitated recognition hypothesis, congruent response to a communicative gesture increased the ability to accurately interpret the actions. In line with dual-process theory, we propose that both mechanisms may be perceived as complementary rather than competitive and affect different stages of stimuli processing.

show abstract

Adaptation aftereffects reveal representations for encoding of contingent social actions

Cited by 21 publications

References 39 publications

Inferring power and dominance from dyadic nonverbal interactions in autism spectrum disorder

Inferring power and dominance from dyadic nonverbal interactions in autism spectrum disorder

Angry facial expressions bias towards aversive actions

Two Means Together? Effects of Response Bias and Sensitivity on Communicative Action Detection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About