Volume 9, Issue 18 (12-2019)                   JRSM 2019, 9(18): 52-70 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Ramezanzade H, Abdoli B, Farsi A, Sanjari M A. Transfer from action to perception: The effect of motor-perceptual enrichment. JRSM 2019; 9 (18) :52-70
URL: http://jrsm.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2311-en.html
1- Damghan University , hesam_ramezanzade@yahoo.com
2- Shahid Beheshti University
3- Department of Rehabilitation Basic Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (3625 Views)

This study investigated the effect of audiovisual integration on action-perception transfer.40 subjects were randomly divided four groups: visual, visual-auditory, control visual and control visual-auditory. Visual groups watched pattern skilled basketball player and other groups in addition to watching pattern skilled basketball player, heard Elbow angular velocity as sonification. In first stage, the pattern is presented to subjects for five times and them replying to ten questions about different aspects of pattern. Then they performed parameter recognition and pattern recongnition tests. In second stage, experimental groups watch pattern five times again and perform it after each watch. Control groups watch pattern similar to experimental group but they must not perform it. All groups responded to the questionnaire and participated in a recognition tests again. Results showed that before action, in “percent confidence reply” and no “reply to questions” there is significant different between experimental groups. But after action in both “percent confidence reply” and “reply to questions” there was significant different between experimental groups and control groups (p<0.05). In this study was confirmed effect of visual-auditory integration on action-perception transfer. This results is explainable based of Common Coding Theory, Direct Matching Hypothesis and Predictive Models. The results are consistent with modality appropriateness hypothesis.

Full-Text [PDF 1528 kb]   (1274 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: sport management
Received: 2017/06/24 | Accepted: 2018/01/9 | Published: 2020/02/8

1. Williams, A.M., Davids, K & Williams, J.G. (1999). Visual Perception and Action in Sport. Routledge, First Published, London.
2. Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In O.Neumann and W. Prinz (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action, pp. 167-201. Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-75348-0_7]
3. Gangopadhyay, N., Madary, M & Spicer, F. (2010). Perception, action and consciousness. Oxford University Press; Part one, 1-18. [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199551118.003.0001]
4. Fadiga, L., Craighero, L & Olivier, E. (2005). Human motor cortex excitability during the perception of others' action. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol, 15, 213-218. [DOI:10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.013]
5. Hurely, S. (2008). The shared circuits model: how control, mirroring, and simulation can enable imitation and mind-reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31 (1), 1 - 22. [DOI:10.1017/S0140525X07003123]
6. Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge : MIT Press
7. O'Regan, K & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision an visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 (5), 883 - 917. [DOI:10.1017/S0140525X01000115]
8. Rossetti, A., Miniussi, C., Maravita, A and Bolognini, N. (2010). Visual perception of bodily interactions in the primary somatosensory cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience, 36(3), 2317-2323. [DOI:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08137.x]
9. Vallar, G., Mancini, F. (2010). Mapping the neglect syndrome onto neurofunctional streams in Perception, Action, and Consciousness. Sensorimotor Dynamics and Two Visual Systems, eds Gangopadhyay N., Madary M., Spicer F., editors, 183-215. [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199551118.003.0011]
10. Halasz, V & Cunnigton, R. (2012). Unconscious Effects of action on perception. Brain Science, 2, 130 -146. [DOI:10.3390/brainsci2020130]
11. Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G.R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Seitz, R.J., Zilles, K., Rizzolatti, G., Freund, H.J. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An fMRI study. Eur. J. Neurosci, 13, 400-404. [DOI:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2001.01385.x]
12. Gazzola, V., Keysers, C. (2009). The observation and execution of actions share motor and somatosensory voxels in all tested subjects: Single-subject analyses of unsmoothed fMRI data. Cereb. Cortex, 19, 1239-1255. [DOI:10.1093/cercor/bhn181]
13. Rizzolatti, G & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev. Neurosci, 27, 169-192. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230]
14. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15. Ishimura, G & Shimojo, S. (1994). Voluntary action captures visual motion. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the association for research in vision and Ophthlamology, Sarasota, FL.
16. Wohlschläger, A. (2000). Visual motion priming by invisible actions. Vision Research, 40, 925-930. [DOI:10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00239-4]
17. Craighero. L., Bello, A., Fadiga, L & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia, 40, 492-502. [DOI:10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00134-8]
18. Hecht, H., Vogt, S & Prinz, W. (2001). Motor learning enhances perceptual judgment: A case for action-perception transfer. Psychological Research, 65, 3-14. [DOI:10.1007/s004260000043]
19. Hamilton, A., Wolpert, D. &, Frith, U. (2004). Your own action influences how you perceive another person's action. Current Biology, 14, 493-498. [DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2004.03.007]
20. Lindemann, O., Bekkering, H. (2009). Object manipulation and motion perception: Evidence of an influence of action planning on visual processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform, 35, 1062-1071. [DOI:10.1037/a0015023]
21. Beets, I.A.M., Rosler, F & Fiehler, K. (2010). Non-visual motor learning improves visual motion perception: Evidence from violating the two-thirds power law. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(3), 1612-24 [DOI:10.1152/jn.00974.2009]
22. Lahav, A., Saltzman, E., Schlaug, G. (2007). Action representation of sound: audiomotor recognition network while listening to newly acquired actions. Journal of Neuroscince, 27, 308-314. [DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4822-06.2007]
23. Walker, B.N., & Cothran, J.T. (2003). Sonification Sandbox a graphical toolkit for auditory graphs. Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display, Boston MA, USA. 6-9.
24. Keller, J.M., Prather, E.E., Boynton, W.V., Enos, H.L., Jones, L.V., et al. (2003). Educational testing of an auditory display regarding seasonal variation of Martian polar ice caps. Proceedings of the international conference on auditory Display, Boston, 6-9, 212-215.
25. Effenbert, A. (2005). Movement sonification : Effects on perception and action. Published by the IEEE Computer Society, 53-59. [DOI:10.1109/MMUL.2005.31]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Research in Sport Management and Motor Behavior

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb