Limits...
Giving a helping hand: effects of joint attention on mental rotation of body parts.

Böckler A, Knoblich G, Sebanz N - Exp Brain Res (2011)

Bottom Line: Research on joint attention has addressed both the effects of gaze following and the ability to share representations.Results revealed a significant flattening of the performance rotation curve when participants attended jointly (experiment 1).Thus, attending to objects together from opposite perspectives makes people adopt an allocentric rather than the default egocentric reference frame.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, & Behaviour, Centre for Cognition, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. A.Bockler@donders.ru.nl

ABSTRACT
Research on joint attention has addressed both the effects of gaze following and the ability to share representations. It is largely unknown, however, whether sharing attention also affects the perceptual processing of jointly attended objects. This study tested whether attending to stimuli with another person from opposite perspectives induces a tendency to adopt an allocentric rather than an egocentric reference frame. Pairs of participants performed a handedness task while individually or jointly attending to rotated hand stimuli from opposite sides. Results revealed a significant flattening of the performance rotation curve when participants attended jointly (experiment 1). The effect of joint attention was robust to manipulations of social interaction (cooperation versus competition, experiment 2), but was modulated by the extent to which an allocentric reference frame was primed (experiment 3). Thus, attending to objects together from opposite perspectives makes people adopt an allocentric rather than the default egocentric reference frame.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Reaction times and linear fits for 1st PP trials in both attention conditions of experiment 2. Left Cooperation group. Right Competition group. The single-attention condition is depicted in grey (squares), the joint-attention condition in black (triangles). The linear trend line for the single condition is depicted in grey, R2 = .99 in the cooperation group and R2 = .98 in the competition group. The linear trend line for the joint condition is shown in black, R2 = .95 in the cooperation group and R2 = .97 in the competition group
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3102195&req=5

Fig3: Reaction times and linear fits for 1st PP trials in both attention conditions of experiment 2. Left Cooperation group. Right Competition group. The single-attention condition is depicted in grey (squares), the joint-attention condition in black (triangles). The linear trend line for the single condition is depicted in grey, R2 = .99 in the cooperation group and R2 = .98 in the competition group. The linear trend line for the joint condition is shown in black, R2 = .95 in the cooperation group and R2 = .97 in the competition group

Mentions: RTs increased significantly with increasing rotation [t(45) = 9.4, p < .001, see Fig. 3]. There was a significant difference between slopes in the single and the joint-attention condition. Overall, slopes were flatter when the other participant was attending as well [F(1, 45) = 11.2, p < .01, see Table 1]. There was no main effect of type of social interaction [F(1, 45) < 1] and no significant two-way interaction of attention and social interaction [F(1, 45) < 1]. Intercepts were significantly smaller in the competition condition than in the cooperation condition [F(1, 45) = 4.5, p < .05]. Intercepts were marginally higher in the joint-attention condition compared to the single-attention condition [F(1, 45) = 3.4, p = .07]. There was no significant two-way interaction of attention and social interaction [F(1, 45) < 1].Fig. 3


Giving a helping hand: effects of joint attention on mental rotation of body parts.

Böckler A, Knoblich G, Sebanz N - Exp Brain Res (2011)

Reaction times and linear fits for 1st PP trials in both attention conditions of experiment 2. Left Cooperation group. Right Competition group. The single-attention condition is depicted in grey (squares), the joint-attention condition in black (triangles). The linear trend line for the single condition is depicted in grey, R2 = .99 in the cooperation group and R2 = .98 in the competition group. The linear trend line for the joint condition is shown in black, R2 = .95 in the cooperation group and R2 = .97 in the competition group
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3102195&req=5

Fig3: Reaction times and linear fits for 1st PP trials in both attention conditions of experiment 2. Left Cooperation group. Right Competition group. The single-attention condition is depicted in grey (squares), the joint-attention condition in black (triangles). The linear trend line for the single condition is depicted in grey, R2 = .99 in the cooperation group and R2 = .98 in the competition group. The linear trend line for the joint condition is shown in black, R2 = .95 in the cooperation group and R2 = .97 in the competition group
Mentions: RTs increased significantly with increasing rotation [t(45) = 9.4, p < .001, see Fig. 3]. There was a significant difference between slopes in the single and the joint-attention condition. Overall, slopes were flatter when the other participant was attending as well [F(1, 45) = 11.2, p < .01, see Table 1]. There was no main effect of type of social interaction [F(1, 45) < 1] and no significant two-way interaction of attention and social interaction [F(1, 45) < 1]. Intercepts were significantly smaller in the competition condition than in the cooperation condition [F(1, 45) = 4.5, p < .05]. Intercepts were marginally higher in the joint-attention condition compared to the single-attention condition [F(1, 45) = 3.4, p = .07]. There was no significant two-way interaction of attention and social interaction [F(1, 45) < 1].Fig. 3

Bottom Line: Research on joint attention has addressed both the effects of gaze following and the ability to share representations.Results revealed a significant flattening of the performance rotation curve when participants attended jointly (experiment 1).Thus, attending to objects together from opposite perspectives makes people adopt an allocentric rather than the default egocentric reference frame.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, & Behaviour, Centre for Cognition, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. A.Bockler@donders.ru.nl

ABSTRACT
Research on joint attention has addressed both the effects of gaze following and the ability to share representations. It is largely unknown, however, whether sharing attention also affects the perceptual processing of jointly attended objects. This study tested whether attending to stimuli with another person from opposite perspectives induces a tendency to adopt an allocentric rather than an egocentric reference frame. Pairs of participants performed a handedness task while individually or jointly attending to rotated hand stimuli from opposite sides. Results revealed a significant flattening of the performance rotation curve when participants attended jointly (experiment 1). The effect of joint attention was robust to manipulations of social interaction (cooperation versus competition, experiment 2), but was modulated by the extent to which an allocentric reference frame was primed (experiment 3). Thus, attending to objects together from opposite perspectives makes people adopt an allocentric rather than the default egocentric reference frame.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus