Do Action Goals Mediate Social Inhibition of Return?

Overview

Journal Psychol Res

Specialty Psychology

Date 2011 Dec 7

PMID 22143901

Citations 9

Authors

Geoff G Cole

Paul A Skarratt

Rebeccah-Claire Billing

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Social inhibition of return is the phenomenon whereby an individual is slower to reach to locations to which another individual has recently responded. Although this suggests that an observer represents another person's action, little is known about which aspects of the action are encoded. The present work describes a series of three experiments examining whether social inhibition of return represents the endpoint goal of the action, i.e., is 'goal based'. Pairs of participants sat opposite to one another and alternated responses to a cued or non-cued object presented on a table top. Importantly, either the two participants performed the same interaction with the object or a different interaction. Although all our experiments showed social inhibition of return, the size of the effect was not modulated according to whether each participant had the same or different goal. We conclude that although the mechanisms giving rise to social inhibition of return do encode some aspects of a response they do not code for terminal action goals.

Citing Articles

Attention allocation in complementary joint action: How joint goals affect spatial orienting.

Schmitz L, Wahn B, Kruger M Atten Percept Psychophys. 2023; 86(5):1574-1593.

PMID: 37684501 PMC: 11557662. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-023-02779-1.

"Two Minds Don't Blink Alike": The Attentional Blink Does Not Occur in a Joint Context.

Constable M, Pratt J, Welsh T Front Psychol. 2018; 9:1714.

PMID: 30258390 PMC: 6143683. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01714.

Social Beliefs and Visual Attention: How the Social Relevance of a Cue Influences Spatial Orienting.

Gobel M, Tufft M, Richardson D Cogn Sci. 2017; 42 Suppl 1:161-185.

PMID: 29094383 PMC: 5969099. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12529.

Visual attention and action: How cueing, direct mapping, and social interactions drive orienting.

Atkinson M, Simpson A, Cole G Psychon Bull Rev. 2017; 25(5):1585-1605.

PMID: 28808932 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1354-0.

Response-specific effects in a joint action task: social inhibition of return effects do not emerge when observed and executed actions are different.

Manzone J, Cole G, Skarratt P, Welsh T Psychol Res. 2016; 81(5):1059-1071.

PMID: 27530404 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-016-0794-x.

References

Brennan S, Chen X, Dickinson C, Neider M, Zelinsky G . Coordinating cognition: the costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition. 2007; 106(3):1465-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.012. View

Rubichi S, Nicoletti R, Iani C, Umilta C . The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attention shift. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1997; 23(5):1353-64. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.23.5.1353. View

Rizzolatti G, Fabbri-Destro M, Cattaneo L . Mirror neurons and their clinical relevance. Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2009; 5(1):24-34. DOI: 10.1038/ncpneuro0990. View

Welsh T, McDougall L, Weeks D . The performance and observation of action shape future behaviour. Brain Cogn. 2009; 71(2):64-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.04.001. View

Abrams R, Christ S . Motion onset captures attention. Psychol Sci. 2003; 14(5):427-32. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.01458. View

Cole G, Liversedge S . Change blindness and the primacy of object appearance. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007; 13(4):588-93. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193967. View

Cattaneo L, Fabbri-Destro M, Boria S, Pieraccini C, Monti A, Cossu G . Impairment of actions chains in autism and its possible role in intention understanding. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104(45):17825-30. PMC: 2077067. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0706273104. View

Mukamel R, Ekstrom A, Kaplan J, Iacoboni M, Fried I . Single-neuron responses in humans during execution and observation of actions. Curr Biol. 2010; 20(8):750-6. PMC: 2904852. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.02.045. View

Hommel B . Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychol Res. 2009; 73(4):512-26. PMC: 2694931. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2. View

10.

Bekkering H, Wohlschlager A, Gattis M . Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2000; 53(1):153-64. DOI: 10.1080/713755872. View

11.

Jones M, Moynihan H, MacKenzie N, Puente J . Temporal aspects of stimulus-driven attending in dynamic arrays. Psychol Sci. 2002; 13(4):313-9. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00458. View

12.

Taylor T, Klein R . Visual and motor effects in inhibition of return. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000; 26(5):1639-56. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.26.5.1639. View

13.

Khatoon S, Briand K, Sereno A . The role of response in spatial attention: direct versus indirect stimulus-response mappings. Vision Res. 2002; 42(24):2693-708. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(02)00327-9. View

14.

Cole G, Kuhn G . What the experimenter's prime tells the observer's brain. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010; 72(5):1367-76. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.5.1367. View

15.

Suzuki S, Cavanagh P . Focused attention distorts visual space: an attentional repulsion effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1997; 23(2):443-63. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.23.2.443. View

16.

di Pellegrino G, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G . Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study. Exp Brain Res. 1992; 91(1):176-80. DOI: 10.1007/BF00230027. View

17.

Simon J . Reactions toward the source of stimulation. J Exp Psychol. 1969; 81(1):174-6. DOI: 10.1037/h0027448. View

18.

Cave K, Bush W, Taylor T . Split attention as part of a flexible attentional system for complex scenes: comment on Jans, Peters, and De Weerd (2010). Psychol Rev. 2010; 117(2):685-96. DOI: 10.1037/a0019083. View

19.

Tipper C, Kingstone A . Is inhibition of return a reflexive effect?. Cognition. 2005; 97(3):B55-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.02.003. View

20.

Welsh T, Elliott D, Anson J, Dhillon V, Weeks D, Lyons J . Does Joe influence Fred's action? Inhibition of return across different nervous systems. Neurosci Lett. 2005; 385(2):99-104. DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.05.013. View