Sequential aiming in pairs: the multiple levels of joint action

The task constraints imposed upon a co-actor can often influence our own actions. Likewise, the observation of somebody else’s movements can involuntarily contaminate the execution of our own movements. These joint action outcomes have rarely been considered in unison. The aim of the present study was to simultaneously examine the underlying processes contributing to joint action. We had pairs of participants work together to execute sequential aiming movements between two targets—the first person’s movement was contingent upon the anticipation of the second person’s movement (leader), while the second person’s movement was contingent upon the direct observation of the first person’s movement (follower). Participants executed separate blocks of two-target aiming movements under different contexts; that is, solely on their own using one (2T1L) and two (2T2L) of their upper limbs, or with another person (2T2P). The first movement segment generally indicated a more abrupt approach (shorter time after peak velocity, greater displacement and magnitude of peak velocity), which surprisingly coincided with lower spatial variability, for the 2T2P context. Meanwhile, the second segment indicated a similar kinematic profile as the first segment for the 2T2P context. The first movement of the leader appeared to accommodate the follower for their movement, while the second movement of the follower was primed by the observation of the leader’s movement. These findings collectively advocate two distinct levels of joint action including the anticipation (top–down) and mapping (bottom–up) of other people’s actions.

A brief glimpse at a haptic target is sufficient for multisensory integration in reaching movements

Goal-directed aiming movements toward visuo-haptic targets (i.e., seen and handheld targets) are generally more precise than those toward visual only or haptic only targets. This multisensory advantage stems from a continuous inflow of haptic and visual target information during the movement planning and execution phases. However, in everyday life, multisensory movements often occur without the support of continuous visual information. Here we investigated whether and to what extent limiting visual information to the initial stage of the action still leads to a multisensory advantage. Participants were asked to reach a handheld target while vision was briefly provided during the movement planning phase (50 ms, 100 ms, 200 ms of vision before movement onset), or during the planning and early execution phases (400 ms of vision), or during the entire movement. Additional conditions were performed in which only haptic target information was provided, or, only vision was provided either briefly (50 ms, 100 ms, 200 ms, 400 ms) or throughout the entire movement. Results showed that 50 ms of vision before movement onset were sufficient to trigger a direction-specific visuo-haptic integration process that increased movement precision. We conclude that, when a continuous support of vision is not available, movement precision is determined by the less recent, but most reliable multisensory information rather than by the latest unisensory (haptic) inputs.

Contributions of exercise-induced fatigue versus intertrial tendon vibration on visual-proprioceptive weighting for goal-directed movement

Previous work has used muscle fatigue or tendon vibration to perturb proprioceptive limb position estimates. This study sought to determine whether exercise-induced muscle fatigue versus intertrial tendon vibration can alter multisensory weighting for upper limb-aiming movements. By introducing a discrepancy between participants’ actual proprioceptive and visual finger position, this study provides seminal evidence for the reduction of proprioceptive-to-visual weighting using intertrial tendon vibration but no evidence for a systematic reduction following exercise-induced fatigue.