It is examined whether and how the perspective of seeing one's own movements exerted an influence on action control. Such change in the perspective challenges an information processor, as she or he has to handle successfully the discrepancies between the tactile/proprioceptive feedback and the visual feedback on a projection screen. In the experiments participants responded to visual stimuli, but saw their responses either from the top or with an x-axis reflection, a y-axis reflection, or a reflection about both axes. The results showed that a change in perspective did not impair performance as long as the left–right relations corresponded with the body space (e.g., with visual feedback reflected about the x-axis). By contrast, performance was drastically reduced when visual feedback was reflected about the y-axis or about both axes, so that performed left-side (right-side) movements were seen as right-side (left-side) movements. It is concluded that an actor preferably relies on the information of the visual system, but refers to the tactile/proprioceptive information when it facilitates the task demands.
BekkeringH.WohlschlägerA.GattisM. (2000). Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A53, 153–164.
2.
BertenthalB. I.LongoM. R.KosobudA. (2006). Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance32, 210–225.
3.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox.Spatial Vision10, 433–436.
4.
BrassM.BekkeringH.WohlschlägerA.PrinzW. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues.Brain and Cognition44, 124–143.
5.
BruzzoA.BorghiA. M.GhirlandaS. (2008). Hand–object interaction in perspective.Neuroscience Letters441, 61–65.
6.
BuccinoG.VogtS.RitzlA.FinkG. R.ZillesK.FreundH.-J. (2004). Neural circuits underlying imitation learning of hand actions: An event-related fMRI study.Neuron42, 323–334.
7.
CraigheroL.BelloA.FadigaL.RizzolattiG. (2002). Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures.Neuropsychologia40, 492–502.
8.
FranckN.FarrerC.GeorgieffN.Marie-CardineM.DaléryJ.d'AmatoT. (2001). Defective recognition of one's own actions in patients with schizophrenia.American Journal of Psychiatry158, 454–459.
9.
GreenwaldA. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism.Psychological Review77, 73–99.
10.
HommelB. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention.Psychological Research55, 270–279.
11.
HommelB.MüsselerJ.AscherslebenG.PrinzW. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action.Behavioral and Brain Sciences24, 869–937.
12.
IacoboniM.DaprettoM. (2006). The mirror neuron system and the consequence of its dysfunction.Nature Reviews Neuroscience7, 942–951.
13.
IacoboniM.WoodsR. P.BrassM.BekkeringH.MazziottaJ. C.RizzolattiG. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation.Science286, 2526–2528.
14.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychologyNew York: Dover.
15.
KnoblichG.KircherT. T. J. (2004). Deceiving oneself about being in control: Conscious detection of changes in visuomotor coupling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance30, 657–666.
16.
KoskiL.IacoboniM.DubeauM.-C.WoodsR. P.MazziottaJ. C. (2003). Modulation of cortical activity during different imitative behaviors.Journal of Neurophysiology89, 460–471.
17.
KundeW.MüsselerJ.HeuerH. (2007). Spatial compatibility effects with tool use.Human Factors49, 661–670.
18.
LavenderT.HommelB. (2007). Affect and action: Towards an event-coding account.Cognition & Emotion21, 1270–1296.
19.
LongoM. R.HaggardP. (2009). Sense of agency primes manual motor responses.Perception38, 69–78.
20.
MassenC.PrinzW. (2007). Programming tool-use actions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance33, 692–704.
21.
MechsnerF.KerzelD.KnoblichG.PrinzW. (2001). Perceptual basis of bimanual coordination.Nature414, 69–72.
22.
MüsselerJ. (1999). How independent from action control is perception? An event-coding account for more equally-ranked crosstalks.AscherslebenG.BachmannT.MüsselerJ.Advances in psychology: Vol. 129. Cognitive contributions to the perception of spatial and temporal eventsAmsterdam: Elsevier121–147.
23.
MüsselerJ.AscherslebenG.ArningK.ProctorR. W. (2009). Reversed effects of spatial compatibility in natural scenes.American Journal of Psychology122, 325–336.
24.
MüsselerJ.KundeW.GausepohlD.HeuerH. (2008). Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects?.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology20, 211–231.
25.
MüsselerJ.SutterC. (2009). Perceiving one's own movements when using a tool.Consciousness and Cognition18, 359–365.
26.
NattkemperD.ZiesslerM. (2004). Cognitive control of action: The role of action effects.Psychological Research68, 71–73.
27.
PelliD. G. (1997). The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies.Spatial Vision10, 437–442.
28.
ProctorR. W.VuK.-P. L. (2006). Stimulus–response-compatibility principles: Data, theory, and applicationNew York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
29.
RizzolattiG.CraigheroL. (2004). The mirror-neuron system.Annual Review of Neuroscience27, 169–192.
30.
SülzenbrückS.HeuerH. (2009). Functional independence of explicit and implicit motor adjustments.Consciousness and Cognition18, 145–159.
31.
WapnerS.CirilloL. (1968). Imitation of a model's hand movements: Age changes in transposition of left–right relations.Child Development39, 887–894.
32.
WohlschlägerA.GattisM.BekkeringH. (2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: An instance of the ideomotor principle.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B358, 501–515doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1257.
33.
YamaguchiM.ProctorR. W. (2006). Stimulus–response compatibility with pure and mixed mappings in a flight task environment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied12, 207–222.
