Attention allocation in complementary joint action: How joint goals affect spatial orienting
-
Published:2023-09-08
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1943-3921
-
Container-title:Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Atten Percept Psychophys
Author:
Schmitz LauraORCID, Wahn Basil, Krüger Melanie
Abstract
AbstractWhen acting jointly, individuals often attend and respond to the same object or spatial location in complementary ways (e.g., when passing a mug, one person grasps its handle with a precision grip; the other receives it with a whole-hand grip). At the same time, the spatial relation between individuals’ actions affects attentional orienting: one is slower to attend and respond to locations another person previously acted upon than to alternate locations (“social inhibition of return”, social IOR). Achieving joint goals (e.g., passing a mug), however, often requires complementary return responses to a co-actor’s previous location. This raises the question of whether attentional orienting, and hence the social IOR, is affected by the (joint) goal our actions are directed at. The present study addresses this question. Participants responded to cued locations on a computer screen, taking turns with a virtual co-actor. They pursued either an individual goal or performed complementary actions with the co-actor, in pursuit of a joint goal. Four experiments showed that the social IOR was significantly modulated when participant and co-actor pursued a joint goal. This suggests that attentional orienting is affected not only by the spatial but also by the social relation between two agents’ actions. Our findings thus extend research on interpersonal perception-action effects, showing that the way another agent’s perceived action shapes our own depends on whether we share a joint goal with that agent.
Funder
Ministerium für Kultur und Wissenschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Linguistics and Language,Sensory Systems,Language and Linguistics,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference95 articles.
1. Anwyl-Irvine, A., Dalmaijer, E. S., Hodges, N., & Evershed, J. K. (2021). Realistic precision and accuracy of online experiment platforms, web browsers, and devices. Behavior Research Methods, 53(4), 1407–1425. 2. Atkinson, M. A., Millett, A. C., Doneva, S. P., Simpson, A., & Cole, G. G. (2018). How social is social inhibition of return? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(8), 1892–1903. 3. Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. 4. Barchiesi, G., Zazio, A., Marcantoni, E., Bulgari, M., di San Pietro, C. B., Sinigaglia, C., & Bortoletto, M. (2022). Sharing motor plans while acting jointly: A TMS study. Cortex, 151, 224–239. 5. Betti, S., Chinellato, E., Guerra, S., Castiello, U., & Sartori, L. (2019). Social motor priming: When offline interference facilitates motor execution. PeerJ, 7, e7796.
|
|