Pointing movements and visuo-spatial working memory in a joint setting: the role of motor inhibition

Effects of pointing movements on visuospatial working memory in a joint-action condition: Evidence from eye movements

“…The results reported by Bhatia et al (2019b) are intriguing in that they echo previous research demonstrating that working in a joint-action condition leads participants to form shared motor representations that specify the actions that the co-actor is expected to perform (Sebanz, Bekkering, & Knoblich, 2006a;Sebanz, Knoblich, & Prinz, 2005). In line with these studies, Bhatia et al (2019b) hypothesized that their findings resulted from the co-representation of the actions performed by the experimenter.…”

“…The results reported by Bhatia et al (2019b) are intriguing in that they echo previous research demonstrating that working in a joint-action condition leads participants to form shared motor representations that specify the actions that the co-actor is expected to perform (Sebanz, Bekkering, & Knoblich, 2006a;Sebanz, Knoblich, & Prinz, 2005). In line with these studies, Bhatia et al (2019b) hypothesized that their findings resulted from the co-representation of the actions performed by the experimenter. Specifically, the authors proposed that, in the joint-action condition, the presentation of other-relevant move arrays (i.e., the arrays to which the experimenter had to point) triggered the anticipatory motor simulation of the experimenter's pointing movements (Kourtis, Sebanz, & Knoblich, 2013).…”

“…Collectively, the results of this set of experiments indicated that the pointing movements performed by the experimenter were as beneficial to immediate recognition as self-performed movements when the two types of actions were alternated in a joint-action condition. More specifically, Bhatia et al (2019b) found that, when participants simply observed the pointing movements performed by the experimenter in a passive condition (Experiment 2), the locations of move arrays were recognized no better than nomove arrays. On the other hand, when participants alternated with the experimenter in performing pointing movements in a joint-action condition (Experiment 3), then the locations of the arrays pointed by both the participants and the experimenter were recognized better than the locations of the no-move arrays.…”

“…Recently, Bhatia et al (2019b) used the paradigm introduced by Chum et al (2007) to determine whether observing the pointing movements performed by the experimenter produced the same positive memory consequences as selfperformed movements. Collectively, the results of this set of experiments indicated that the pointing movements performed by the experimenter were as beneficial to immediate recognition as self-performed movements when the two types of actions were alternated in a joint-action condition.…”

The influence of location, ownership, and the presence of a coactor on the processing of objects.

“…In contrast, the active co-actor used in the study by Saccone et al (2018) (and in the current study) may have resulted in the participants' processing the task as a joint process (i.e., a more "we-mode" process) that resulted in the division of labour and contraction of space (see Constable et al [2015] for an examination of active versus passive co-actors). Although passive versus active coactors are a potentially relevant difference in methodology that may lead to differences in object processing, this issue is tangential to the current research goal and, as such, future studies should Processing of objects & social cues 30 more directly explore whether the impact of an active versus passive co-actor is influential upon the coding of space (see also Bhatia et al, 2019).…”