1 Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, National Research Council, Rome, Italy.
2 Computer Science Engineering, University of Palermo.
Psychol Sci. 2017 Mar;28(3):338-345. doi: 10.1177/0956797616683015. Epub 2017 Jan 1.
Using a lifting and balancing task, we contrasted two alternative views of planning joint actions: one postulating that joint action involves distinct predictions for self and other, the other postulating that joint action involves coordinated plans between the coactors and reuse of bimanual models. We compared compensatory movements required to keep a tray balanced when 2 participants lifted glasses from each other's trays at the same time (simultaneous joint action) and when they took turns lifting (sequential joint action). Compared with sequential joint action, simultaneous joint action made it easier to keep the tray balanced. Thus, in keeping with the view that bimanual models are reused for joint action, predicting the timing of their own lifting action helped participants compensate for another person's lifting action. These results raise the possibility that simultaneous joint actions do not necessarily require distinguishing between one's own and the coactor's contributions to the action plan and may afford an agent-neutral stance.
我们使用了一个提升和平衡任务，对比了两种关于规划联合动作的不同观点：一种观点认为联合动作涉及到对自己和他人的不同预测，另一种观点则认为联合动作涉及到共同行为者之间的协调计划和双手模型的复用。我们比较了参与者同时从彼此的托盘上拿起杯子时（同时进行联合动作）和轮流拿起杯子时（顺序进行联合动作）保持托盘平衡所需的补偿动作。与顺序联合动作相比，同时联合动作更容易保持托盘平衡。因此，与双手模型被重新用于联合动作的观点一致，预测自己的提升动作的时间有助于参与者补偿他人的提升动作。这些结果表明，同时进行的联合动作不一定需要区分自己和共同行为者对行动计划的贡献，并且可能提供一种代理中立的立场。
