UDC

612.821.8:[316.77+159.94]

DOI

10.37482/2687-1491-Z120

Authors

Ekaterina S. Mes’kova* ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9256-0253
Elena P. Murtazina* ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4243-8727
Yuliya A. Ginzburg-Shik* ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8675-8116
*P.K. Anokhin Research Institute of Normal Physiology (Moscow, Russian Federation)
Corresponding author: Ekaterina Mes’kova, address: ul. Baltiyskaya 8, Moscow, 125315, Russian Federation; e-mail: meskova_katerina@rambler.ru

Abstract

The review analyses studies into the influence of social factors on the kinematic profiles (velocity, amplitude, trajectory, grip aperture and other characteristics) of human actions. Laboratory models of human joint sensorimotor activity in different social contexts are described, exemplified by reach kinematics, complementary actions, sensorimotor communication, imitation tasks and motor interference tasks. Research into the influence of the goals of interaction (cooperation, competition, communication) and the presence of an observer on the kinematic profiles of human movements is analysed. Further, the paper demonstrates the role of social factors in the performance of complementary actions and describes the effect of the mutual influence of the physical requirements of the task and social context on the kinematic profile of movements. Results are presented showing that co-actors modulate their actions to eliminate ambiguity of their motor intentions for the other person (sensorimotor communication). Contextual factors influencing the degree of motor interference and imitative behaviour are described, such as: the type of stimuli observed, co-agent’s status, group membership, and neurotypicality of the subjects. The possibility of reducing the effect of visuomotor interference by presenting incongruent actions as interdependent components of an overall activity plan is shown. In addition, neurophysiological mechanisms of interpersonal coordination are described. It is concluded that findings on human movement patterns in different social contexts can be used to increase teamwork efficiency in various professional fields, rehabilitate people with movement disorders, optimize working conditions, and improve human interactions with robotic systems.

Keywords

neurophysiological mechanisms of goal-directed actions, cooperative activity, social context, interpersonal coordination, kinematics of human actions, sensorimotor communication, movement velocity, movement trajectory

References

1. Albert S., de Ruiter J.P. Improving Human Interaction Research Through Ecological Grounding. Collabra Psychol., 2018, vol. 4, no. 1. Art. no. 24. DOI: 10.1525/collabra.132

2. Ciardo F., Campanini I., Merlo A., Rubichi S., Iani C. The Role of Perspective in Discriminating Between Social and Non-Social Intentions from Reach-to-Grasp Kinematics. Psychol. Res., 2018, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 915–928. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-017-0868-4

3. Georgiou I., Becchio C., Glover S., Castiello U. Different Action Patterns for Cooperative and Competitive Behaviour. Cognition, 2007, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 415–433. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.01.008

4. Krishnan-Barman S., Forbes P.A.G., Hamilton A.F. de C. How Can the Study of Action Kinematics Inform Our Understanding of Human Social Interaction? Neuropsychologia, 2017, vol. 105, рр. 101–110. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.01.018

5. Becchio C., Sartori L., Bulgheroni M., Castiello U. Both Your Intention and Mine Are Reflected in the Kinematics of My Reach-to-Grasp Movement. Cognition, 2008, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 894–912. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.004

6. Quesque F., Delevoye-Turrell Y., Coello Y. Facilitation Effect of Observed Motor Deviants in a Cooperative Motor Task: Evidence for Direct Perception of Social Intention in Action. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove), 2016, vol. 69, no. 8, pp. 1451–1463. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1083596

7. Vesper C., Schmitz L., Safra L., Sebanz N., Knoblich G. The Role of Shared Visual Information for Joint Action Coordination. Cognition, 2016, vol. 153, pp. 118–123. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.05.002

8. Gigliotti M.F., Sampaio A., Bartolo A., Coello Y. The Combined Effects of Motor and Social Goals on the Kinematics of Object-Directed Motor Action. Sci. Rep., 2020, vol. 10. Art. no. 6369. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-63314-y

9. Sartori L., Betti S. Complementary Actions. Front. Psychol., 2015, vol. 6. Art. no. 557. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00557

10. Curioni A., Knoblich G.K., Sebanz N., Sacheli L.M. The Engaging Nature of Interactive Gestures. PLoS One, 2020, vol. 15, no. 4. Art. no. e0232128. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232128

11. de la Rosa S., Meilinger T., Streuber S., Saulton A., Fademrecht L., Quiros-Ramirez M.A., Bülthoff H., Bülthoff I., Cañal-Bruland R. Visual Appearance Modulates Motor Control in Social Interactions. Acta Psychol. (Amst.), 2020, vol. 210. Art. no. 103168. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103168

12. Di Bono M.G., Begliomini C., Budisavljevic S., Sartori L., Miotto D., Motta R., Castiello U. Decoding Social Intentions in Human Prehensile Actions: Insights from a Combined Kinematics-fMRI Study. PLoS One, 2017, vol. 12, no. 8. Art. no. e0184008. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184008

13. Sartori L., Becchio C., Bara B.G., Castiello U. Does the Intention to Communicate Affect Action Kinematics? Conscious. Cogn., 2009, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 766–772. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2009.06.004

14. Gianelli C., Scorolli C., Borghi A.M. Acting in Perspective: The Role of Body and Language as Social Tools. Psychol. Res., 2013, vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 40–52. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-011-0401-0

15. Fantoni C., Rigutti S., Piccoli V., Sommacal E., Carnaghi A. Faster but Less Careful Prehension in Presence of High, Rather Than Low, Social Status Attendees. PLoS One, 2016, vol. 11, no. 6. Art. no. e0158095. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158095

16. Sartori L., Becchio C., Bulgheroni M., Castiello U. Modulation of the Action Control System by Social Intention: Unexpected Social Requests Override Preplanned Action. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 2009, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 1490–1500.  DOI: 10.1037/a0015777

17. Sowden S., Schuster B.A., Keating C.T., Fraser D.S., Cook J.L. The Role of Movement Kinematics in Facial Emotion Expression Production and Recognition. Emotion, 2021, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1041–1061. DOI: 10.1037/emo0000835

18. Schuster B.A., Sowden S.L., Abdlkarim D., Wing A.M., Cook J.L. Acting Is Not the Same as Feeling: Emotion Expression in Gait Is Different for Posed and Induced Emotions. Front. Hum. Neurosci., 2019, vol. 13. DOI: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2019.229.00010

19. Agrawal Y., Carlson E., Toiviainen P., Alluri V. Decoding Individual Differences and Musical Preference via Music-Induced Movement. Sci. Rep., 2022, vol. 12. Art. no. 2672. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-06466-3

20. Fink B., André S., Mines J.S., Weege B., Shackelford T.K., Butovskaya M.L. Sex Difference in Attractiveness Perceptions of Strong and Weak Male Walkers // Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2016. Vol. 28, № 6. Р. 913–917. DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.22891

21. Weege B., Pham M.N., Shackelford T.K., Fink B. Physical Strength and Dance Attractiveness: Further Evidence for an Association in Men, but Not in Women // Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2015. Vol. 27, № 5. Р. 728–730. DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.22703

22. Gallup A.C., Fink B. Handgrip Strength as a Darwinian Fitness Indicator in Men // Front. Psychol. 2018. Vol. 9. Art. № 439. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00439

23. Hemeren P. Reverse Hierarchy Theory and the Role of Kinematic Information in Semantic Level Processing and Intention Perception. 2019. URL: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:his:diva-17826 (дата обращения: 13.07.2022).

24. Trujillo J.P., Simanova I., Bekkering H., Özyürek A. Communicative Intent Modulates Production and Comprehension of Actions and Gestures: A Kinect Study // Cognition. 2018. Vol. 180. P. 38–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.003

25. McEllin L., Knoblich G., Sebanz N. Distinct Kinematic Markers of Demonstration and Joint Action Coordination? Evidence from Virtual Xylophone Playing // J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2018. Vol. 44, № 6. Р. 885–897. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000505

26. Pezzulo G., Donnarumma F., Dindo H., D’Ausilio A., Konvalinka I., Castelfranchi C. The Body Talks: Sensorimotor Communication and Its Brain and Kinematic Signatures // Phys. Life Rev. 2019. Vol. 28. P. 1–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2018.06.014

27. Schmitz L., Vesper C., Sebanz N., Knoblich G. When Height Carries Weight: Communicating Hidden Object Properties for Joint Action // Cogn. Sci. 2018. Vol. 42, № 6. Р. 2021–2059. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12638

28. Martel L., Bidet-Ildei C., Coello Y. Anticipating the Terminal Position of an Observed Action: Effect of Kinematic, Structural, and Identity Information // Vis. Cogn. 2011. Vol. 19, № 6. P. 785–798. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2011.587847

29. De Marco D., Scalona E., Bazzini M.C., Avanzini P., Fabbri-Destro M. Observer-Agent Kinematic Similarity Facilitates Action Intention Decoding // Sci. Rep. 2020. Vol. 10. Art. № 2605. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-59176-z

30. Hovaidi-Ardestani M., Caggiano V., Giese M. Neurodynamical Model for the Coupling of Action Perception and Execution // ICANN. 2017. Vol. 10613. Р. 19–26. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-68600-4_3

31. Hayes S.J., Dutoy C.A., Elliott D., Gowen E., Bennett S.J. Atypical Biological Motion Kinematics Are Represented by Complementary Lower-Level and Top-Down Processes During Imitation Learning // Acta Psychol. (Amst.). 2016. Vol. 163. P. 10–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.10.005

32. Forbes P.A.G., Hamilton A.F.D.C. Moving Higher and Higher: Imitators’ Movements Are Sensitive to Observed Trajectories Regardless of Action Rationality // Exp. Brain Res. 2017. Vol. 235, № 9. Р. 2741–2753. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-017-5006-4

33. Forbes P.A.G., Pan X., Hamilton A.F.D.C. Reduced Mimicry to Virtual Reality Avatars in Autism Spectrum Disorder // J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2016. Vol. 46, № 12. Р. 3788–3797. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-016-2930-2

34. Forbes P.A.G., Wang Y., Hamilton A.F.D.C. STORMy Interactions: Gaze and the Modulation of Mimicry in Adults on the Autism Spectrum // Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2017. Vol. 24, № 2. Р. 529–535. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1136-0

35. Kilner J.M., Neal A., Weiskopf N., Friston K.J., Frith C.D. Evidence of Mirror Neurons in Human Inferior Frontal Gyrus // J. Neurosci. 2009. Vol. 29, № 32. P. 10153–10159. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2668-09.2009

36. Cook J., Swapp D., Pan X., Bianchi-Berthouze N., Blakemore S.-J. Atypical Interference Effect of Action Observation in Autism Spectrum Conditions // Psychol. Med. 2014. Vol. 44, № 4. P. 731–740. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291713001335

37. Clarke S., McEllin L., Francová A., Székely M., Butterfill S., Michael J. Joint Action Goals Reduce Visuomotor Interference Effects from a Partner’s Incongruent Actions // Sci. Rep. 2019. Vol. 9. Art. № 15414. DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-52124-6

38. Kupferberg A., Huber M., Helfer B., Lenz C., Knoll A., Glasauer S. Moving Just Like You: Motor Interference Depends on Similar Motility of Agent and Observer // PLoS One. 2012. Vol. 7, № 6. Art. № e39637. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039637

39. Stanley J., Gowen E., Miall R.C. Effects of Agency on Movement Interference During Observation of a Moving Dot Stimulus // J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2007. Vol. 33, № 4. Р. 915–926. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.33.4.915

40. Caruana N., de Lissa P., McArthur G. Beliefs About Human Agency Influence the Neural Processing of Gaze During Joint Attention // Soc. Neurosci. 2017. Vol. 12, № 2. Р. 194–206. DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2016.1160953

41. van Schaik J.E., Endedijk H.M., Stapel J.C., Hunnius S. Young Children’s Motor Interference Is Influenced by Novel Group Membership // Front. Psychol. 2016. Vol. 7. Art. № 321. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00321

42. Bernshteyn N.A. Biomekhanika i fiziologiya dvizheniy: izbrannye psikhologicheskie trudy [Biomechanics and Physiology of Movement: Selected Works on Psychology]. Moscow, 2008. 687 p.

43. Koban L., Ramamoorthy A., Konvalinka I. Why Do We Fall into Sync with Others? Interpersonal Synchronization and the Brain’s Optimization Principle // Soc. Neurosci. 2019. Vol. 14, № 1. Р. 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2017.1400463

44. Darda K.M., Ramsey R. The Inhibition of Automatic Imitation: A Meta-Analysis and Synthesis of fMRI Studies // Neuroimage. 2019. Vol. 197. P. 320–329. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.04.059

45. Zarka D., Cebolla A.M., Cheron G. Neurones miroirs, substrat neuronal de la compréhension de l’action? // Encephale. 2022. Vol. 48, № 1. Р. 83–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.encep.2021.06.005

46. Kourtis D., Sebanz N., Knoblich G. Favouritism in the Motor System: Social Interaction Modulates Action Simulation // Biol. Lett. 2010. Vol. 6, № 6. Р. 758–761. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0478

47. Yoshioka A., Tanabe H.C., Sumiya M., Nakagawa E., Okazaki S., Koike T., Sadato N. Neural Substrates of Shared Visual Experiences: A Hyperscanning fMRI Study // Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2021. Vol. 16, № 12. Р. 1264–1275. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsab082

48. Hamilton A.F. de C. Cognitive Underpinnings of Social Interaction // Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove). 2015. Vol. 68, № 3. Р. 417–432. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2014.973424

49. Anokhin P.K. Ocherki po fiziologii funktsional’nykh sistem [Essays on the Physiology of Functional Systems]. Moscow, 2021. 450 p.
    

50. Chen T.L., Ciocarlie M., Cousins S., Grice P.M., Hawkins K., Hsiao K., Kemp C.C., King C.-H., Lazewatsky D.A., Leeper A.E., Nguyen H., Paepcke A., Pantofaru C., Smart W.D., Takayama L. Robots for Humanity: Using Assistive Robotics to Empower People with Disabilities. IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag., 2013, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 30–39. DOI: 10.1109/MRA.2012.2229950

51. Levac D.E., Huber M.E., Sternad D. Learning and Transfer of Complex Motor Skills in Virtual Reality: A Perspective Review. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil., 2019, vol. 16, no. 1. Art. no. 121. DOI: 10.1186/s12984-019-0587-8