What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.

Explaining or predicting the behaviour of our conspecifics requires the ability to infer the intentions that motivate it. Such inferences are assumed to rely on two types of information: (1) the sensory information conveyed by movement kinematics and (2) the observer's prior expectations--acqui...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Valerian Chambon, Philippe Domenech, Elisabeth Pacherie, Etienne Koechlin, Pierre Baraduc, Chlöé Farrer
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/ee24cb8f63ab46b1be2b5a87d2b9a19f
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:ee24cb8f63ab46b1be2b5a87d2b9a19f
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:ee24cb8f63ab46b1be2b5a87d2b9a19f2021-11-18T06:58:33ZWhat are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0017133https://doaj.org/article/ee24cb8f63ab46b1be2b5a87d2b9a19f2011-02-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21364992/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203Explaining or predicting the behaviour of our conspecifics requires the ability to infer the intentions that motivate it. Such inferences are assumed to rely on two types of information: (1) the sensory information conveyed by movement kinematics and (2) the observer's prior expectations--acquired from past experience or derived from prior knowledge. However, the respective contribution of these two sources of information is still controversial. This controversy stems in part from the fact that "intention" is an umbrella term that may embrace various sub-types each being assigned different scopes and targets. We hypothesized that variations in the scope and target of intentions may account for variations in the contribution of visual kinematics and prior knowledge to the intention inference process. To test this hypothesis, we conducted four behavioural experiments in which participants were instructed to identify different types of intention: basic intentions (i.e. simple goal of a motor act), superordinate intentions (i.e. general goal of a sequence of motor acts), or social intentions (i.e. intentions accomplished in a context of reciprocal interaction). For each of the above-mentioned intentions, we varied (1) the amount of visual information available from the action scene and (2) participant's prior expectations concerning the intention that was more likely to be accomplished. First, we showed that intentional judgments depend on a consistent interaction between visual information and participant's prior expectations. Moreover, we demonstrated that this interaction varied according to the type of intention to be inferred, with participant's priors rather than perceptual evidence exerting a greater effect on the inference of social and superordinate intentions. The results are discussed by appealing to the specific properties of each type of intention considered and further interpreted in the light of a hierarchical model of action representation.Valerian ChambonPhilippe DomenechElisabeth PacherieEtienne KoechlinPierre BaraducChlöé FarrerPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 6, Iss 2, p e17133 (2011)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Valerian Chambon Philippe Domenech Elisabeth Pacherie Etienne Koechlin Pierre Baraduc Chlöé Farrer What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.
description	Explaining or predicting the behaviour of our conspecifics requires the ability to infer the intentions that motivate it. Such inferences are assumed to rely on two types of information: (1) the sensory information conveyed by movement kinematics and (2) the observer's prior expectations--acquired from past experience or derived from prior knowledge. However, the respective contribution of these two sources of information is still controversial. This controversy stems in part from the fact that "intention" is an umbrella term that may embrace various sub-types each being assigned different scopes and targets. We hypothesized that variations in the scope and target of intentions may account for variations in the contribution of visual kinematics and prior knowledge to the intention inference process. To test this hypothesis, we conducted four behavioural experiments in which participants were instructed to identify different types of intention: basic intentions (i.e. simple goal of a motor act), superordinate intentions (i.e. general goal of a sequence of motor acts), or social intentions (i.e. intentions accomplished in a context of reciprocal interaction). For each of the above-mentioned intentions, we varied (1) the amount of visual information available from the action scene and (2) participant's prior expectations concerning the intention that was more likely to be accomplished. First, we showed that intentional judgments depend on a consistent interaction between visual information and participant's prior expectations. Moreover, we demonstrated that this interaction varied according to the type of intention to be inferred, with participant's priors rather than perceptual evidence exerting a greater effect on the inference of social and superordinate intentions. The results are discussed by appealing to the specific properties of each type of intention considered and further interpreted in the light of a hierarchical model of action representation.
format	article
author	Valerian Chambon Philippe Domenech Elisabeth Pacherie Etienne Koechlin Pierre Baraduc Chlöé Farrer
author_facet	Valerian Chambon Philippe Domenech Elisabeth Pacherie Etienne Koechlin Pierre Baraduc Chlöé Farrer
author_sort	Valerian Chambon
title	What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.
title_short	What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.
title_full	What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.
title_fullStr	What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.
title_full_unstemmed	What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.
title_sort	what are they up to? the role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2011
url	https://doaj.org/article/ee24cb8f63ab46b1be2b5a87d2b9a19f
work_keys_str_mv	AT valerianchambon whataretheyuptotheroleofsensoryevidenceandpriorknowledgeinactionunderstanding AT philippedomenech whataretheyuptotheroleofsensoryevidenceandpriorknowledgeinactionunderstanding AT elisabethpacherie whataretheyuptotheroleofsensoryevidenceandpriorknowledgeinactionunderstanding AT etiennekoechlin whataretheyuptotheroleofsensoryevidenceandpriorknowledgeinactionunderstanding AT pierrebaraduc whataretheyuptotheroleofsensoryevidenceandpriorknowledgeinactionunderstanding AT chloefarrer whataretheyuptotheroleofsensoryevidenceandpriorknowledgeinactionunderstanding
_version_	1718424142191001600

What are they up to? The role of sensory evidence and prior knowledge in action understanding.

Ejemplares similares