Effects of Context on Visuomotor Interference Depends on the Perspective of Observed Actions

Abstract

Visuomotor interference occurs when the execution of an action is facilitated by the concurrent observation of the same action and hindered by the concurrent observation of a different action. There is evidence that visuomotor interference can be modulated top-down by higher cognitive functions, depending on whether own performed actions or observed actions are selectively attended. Here, we studied whether these effects of cognitive context on visuomotor interference are also dependent on the point-of-view of the observed action. We employed a delayed go/no-go task known to induce visuomotor interference. Static images of hand gestures in either egocentric or allocentric perspective were presented as “go” stimuli after participants were pre-cued to prepare either a matching (congruent) or non-matching (incongruent) action. Participants performed this task in two different cognitive contexts: In one, they focused on the visual image of the hand gesture shown as the go stimulus (image context), whereas in the other they focused on the hand gesture they performed (action context). We analyzed reaction times to initiate the prepared action upon presentation of the gesture image and found evidence of visuomotor interference in both contexts and for both perspectives. Strikingly, results show that the effect of cognitive context on visuomotor interference also depends on the perspective of observed actions. When focusing on own-actions, visuomotor interference was significantly less for gesture images in allocentric perspective than in egocentric perspective; when focusing on observed actions, visuomotor interference was present regardless of the perspective of the gesture image. Overall these data suggest that visuomotor interference may be modulated by higher cognitive processes, so that when we are specifically attending to our own actions, images depicting others’ actions (allocentric perspective) have much less interference on our own actions.

Visual–Motor Interactions during Action Observation Are Shaped by Cognitive Context

“…This interaction arose from a much larger congruency effect for images presented in the egocentric perspective (congruent: 646 ± 159 msec, incongruent: 726 ± 197 msec) compared with images presented in the allocentric perspective (congruent: 661 ± 172 msec, incongruent: 701 ± 184 msec). These results replicate those reported in a recent study in which we examined the effects of perspective and context on visuomotor interference (Bortoletto et al, 2013) and are consistent with previous studies showing that action images presented from an egocentric perspective trigger stronger visuomotor interference than images from an allocentric perspective (Bruzzo, Borghi, & Ghirlanda, 2008;Jackson, Meltzoff, & Decety, 2006). Error rates on the task were low and did not differ significantly between conditions, suggesting that participants performed the task well and according to instructions.…”

“…Interestingly, our Experiment 1 suggests that, when observed actions, as the go cue, are seen from an allocentric perspective, the congruency effect is reversed relative to when actions are observed from an egocentric perspective (Press et al, 2010). In a purely behavioral study, we recently reported that the effect of cognitive context on visuomotor interference is indeed perspective-dependent, that is, visuomotor interference in the action context is stronger for gesture images from an egocentric perspective than for those from an allocentric perspective (Bortoletto, Mattingley, & Cunnington, 2013). Hand images in the egocentric perspective better match the representation of the action outcome that is created at the time of movement initiation (Kilner, Friston, & Frith, 2007;Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001) and may therefore trigger different matching processes between predicted and observed action outcomes (Bortoletto et al, 2013).…”

“…We suggest that observing actions from an egocentric or allocentric perspective may lead to different identification of the actionsʼ agent, that is, the participants themselves or others, respectively (Bortoletto et al, 2013;David et al, 2006;Vogt et al, 2003). If an incongruent action is observed from an egocentric perspective, visual processing of the action may trigger detection of a mismatch between intended actions and current external cues, which could be important for action updating at the time of movement initiation (Bortoletto et al, 2013;Press et al, 2010).…”

“…In a purely behavioral study, we recently reported that the effect of cognitive context on visuomotor interference is indeed perspective-dependent, that is, visuomotor interference in the action context is stronger for gesture images from an egocentric perspective than for those from an allocentric perspective (Bortoletto, Mattingley, & Cunnington, 2013). Hand images in the egocentric perspective better match the representation of the action outcome that is created at the time of movement initiation (Kilner, Friston, & Frith, 2007;Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001) and may therefore trigger different matching processes between predicted and observed action outcomes (Bortoletto et al, 2013). To verify this effect of perspective and to provide further support for the conclusions drawn from Experiment 1, we replicated the initial experiment in an independent sample.…”

Transcranial alternating current stimulation to the inferior parietal lobe decreases mu suppression to egocentric, but not allocentric hand movements

“…Typically, correlational studies investigating perspectives as an indication of self-other differentiation have shown that egocentric stimuli induce greater neurophysiological and behavioural responses compared to allocentric stimuli. For example, it has been observed: greater cortical activity in the sensorymotor cortex (Jackson et al, 2006), greater visuomotor interference (Bortoletto et al, 2013;Vogt et al, 2003) and larger motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) as induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during the observation of egocentric movements (Maeda et al, 2002). However, these correlational reports have not always been consistent; Alaerts and colleagues (2009) reported that MEPs are not necessarily larger for egocentric movements per se; rather, MEP's are larger for an egocentric right hand and for an allocentric left hand.…”