Synchronised and complementary coordination mechanisms in an asymmetric joint aiming task

Abstract

Many forms of social interaction require that behaviour be coordinated in the here and now. Much research has been conducted on how people coordinate their actions in real time to achieve a joint goal, showing that people use both synchronised (i.e., symmetric) and complementary (i.e., asymmetric) strategies. These two mechanisms have been mostly studied independently, the former in the context of rhythmic tasks, and the latter in non-rhythmic tasks. However, people often balance these two strategies in real-life social interactions, in order to achieve a joint goal more effectively. Here, our aim was to investigate how people may implicitly balance synchronisation and complementarity in a continuous joint aiming task. We asked dyads to synchronise the timing of their clicks between targets, while changing task constraints for one member of the dyad (i.e., different task difficulties) to asymmetrically perturb the continuous interaction. This allowed us to investigate how individuals implicitly negotiate complementary leader-follower dynamics to achieve synchronisation. We found that dyads flexibly switch from mutual to asymmetric adaptation given variations in task constraints. Specifically, our results show that both members adapt equally up to a certain level of difficulty; after this point, the partner with the difficult task becomes less adaptive, and hence more of a leader, while the adaptability of the member with the easier task remains unchanged. This proves to be an effective strategy in this asymmetric task, as people synchronise better with an irregular, but adaptive partner, than with a completely predictable, but non-responsive metronome. These results show that given asymmetric task constraints, adaptability, rather than predictability, facilitates coordination.

Oxytocin improves synchronisation in leader-follower interaction

“…synchronisation indices, windowed cross-correlations, asynchronies), by ensuring that taps were aligned between pairs54. Thus, if one pair member skipped a beat, the tap of the other was removed, to ensure the shifts in the lagged cross-correlations were not artefactual.…”

“…Similarly, a positive lag +1 correlation would indicate the other member is adapting (and thus is the follower). A positive lag 0 correlation would mean that the participants are correlated in real time, indicating that when one speeds up, the other speeds up as well; finally, a negative lag 0 correlation would mean that the two participants were anti-correlated, such that when one speeds up, the other slows down5458. The coefficients were compared across groups using 2 (OT vs Placebo) × 4 (hearing self; member 1 acting as leader, member 2 acting as follower; member 1 acting as follower, member 2 acting as leader; bidirectional coupling) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and lag −1, 0, and +1 correlation coefficients as the dependent variables.…”

Interactional leader–follower sensorimotor communication strategies during repetitive joint actions

“…In this perspective, the asymmetric allocation of information between two partners (e.g. leader-follower) is known to shape the kinematics of their movements [14,[17][18][19][20][21]. Role assignment gives the agents the possibility to support coordination by implementing so-called signalling strategies [22,23], for example by systematically making the trajectory of their movements less variable and hence more predictable [14,24,25].…”

Motor control hierarchy in joint action that involves bimanual force production

“…Reed et al (2006) have also found an interpersonal complementary relationship in a joint target-acquisition task [also see Skewes et al (2015)]. They asked pairs of participants to move a mark on a disk into a target as quickly as possible and hold it there.…”

“…Coordination that may occur intentionally between individuals with a common goal in a motor task has recently been studied using the term "joint action" [defined by Ganesh et al (2014); Masumoto and Inui (2014b); Newman-Norlund et al (2008); Sebanz et al (2006); and Skewes et al (2015)]. For example, Bosga and Meulenbroek (2007) asked pairs of participants to perform a virtual lifting task using constant uni-or bimanual isometric force, although they did not examine the hierarchical relation between bimanual and joint actions.…”