<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Sasha Ondobaka (s.ondobaka@ucl.ac.uk)</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4">4</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Antonia Hamilton</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Chairperson Cristina Becchio</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Dimitrios Kourtis</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3">
          <label>3</label>
          <institution>Speakers Andrea Cavallo</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4">
          <label>4</label>
          <institution>Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging and Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, University College London University College London</institution>
          ,
          <country country="UK">UK</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>17</fpage>
      <lpage>18</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Andrea Cavallo</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        The ability to interpret and predict the behavior of other
people hinges crucially on judgments about the
intentionality of their actions – whether they act
purposefully (with intent) or not – as well as on judgments
about the specific intentions guiding their actions – whether
they performed a given action with an individual, a social,
or a communicative intent. Until recently, direct
investigation of these skills has been rare
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">(Baldwin and
Baird, 2001)</xref>
        . One obstacle to such investigation has been
the framing of the problem of intention understanding as a
problem of access to mental states which are hidden away in
the other person’s mind and therefore inaccessible to
perception. The supposition has been that intentions are not
“things that can be seen”
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">(Gallagher, 2008)</xref>
        .
      </p>
      <p>
        Recent findings challenge this perspective by positing that
intentions shape movement and are thus specified at a
tangible and quantifiable level in the movement kinematics
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">(Ansuini et al., 2015; Becchio et al. 2010)</xref>
        . This raises the
intriguing possibility that covert mental state dispositions
may become ‘visible’ in a person’s overt motor behavior
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">(Runeson and Frykholm 1983)</xref>
        .
      </p>
      <p>The purpose of this symposium is to consider whether and
to what extent our cognitive system has the ability to use
intention-from-movement information to understand others’
behavior. Speakers from neuroscience, psychology, and
movement sciences will present their latest findings,
providing a state-of-the-art view of action and intention
understanding to the audience of the EAP Cogsci 2015
Conference.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Decoding intentions from kinematics: when ‘hidden’ mental states become visible</title>
      <p>
        When we perform actions in daily life, these actions are
usually driven by a prior intention. Current accounts, based
on a one-to-many assumption, hypothesize that the same
intention can be achieved with different movements, and
more problematically, that the same movement can be used
for different goals and intentions
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4 ref5">(Csibra 2007; Kilner et al.
2007; Jacob 2013)</xref>
        . However, by means of the study of
kinematics involved in reach-to-grasp movements, here I
introduce how and the extent to which intentions are
encoded in kinematics. In other words, I show that from
early phases of actions, intentions behind an action play a
trivial role in influencing response properties and shaping
movement kinematics during movement execution. Then,
by taking the ‘action execution’ as a starting point, the
inevitable questions is: Is it possible to understand the
intentions of others by merely observing their movements?
Do visual kinematics provide a sufficient basis for
discriminating intentions? To answer these questions we
asked participants to observe video clips depicting reach to
grasp movements and discriminate between different
intentions. Since they could rely only on kinematic
information to perform the task, we demonstrate that
observers are sensitive to early differences in visual
kinematics and can use them to discriminate between
movements performed with different intentions.
      </p>
      <p>The Joint action modulates the sensorimotor
representation of another person’s action:
Evidence from EEG studies
Previous research has shown that the sensorimotor
representation of another person’s action may take place
before the onset of the action and may depend on the motor
abilities of the observer and on “social factors” such as the
bodily and face orientation of the actor. I will discuss EEG
(electroencephalography) findings from two studies where I
investigated triadic social interactions and examined
whether the sensorimotor representation of another person’s
action depends on occasional present and past interactions
between the actor and the observer, and also on the
distribution of the joint task between two interaction
partners. The analysis of 10-Hz mu oscillations showed that
observation of an individual action of an interaction partner
induces greater activation of sensorimotor areas compared
to observation of the same action of a person performing
only individual actions, unless this person had interacted
with the observer in the recent past. In addition, it is likely
that an observer simulates in advance the action onset of an
individual action of an interaction partner, but only when
the partner is the one who initiates the joint action. These
results demonstrate that action representation can be
enhanced by present and past interactions between an actor
and an observer and that is influenced by the way a joint
task is distributed between interaction partners.</p>
      <p>Mechanisms of imitation: insights from typical
and autistic cognition</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Antonia Hamilton</title>
        <p>Imitation is a ubiquitous human behaviour which provides a
useful model of nonverbal social interaction. Though
imitation is easy to recognise, the cognitive processes
underlying it are very complex. Here I describe studies of
when and why people chose to copy some actions but not
others. This includes studies of children, adults and people
with autism. I make a key distinction between imitation of
action goals (emulation) and imitation of action forms
(mimicry), and suggest that there are different cognitive and
neural mechanisms involved in each. In particular, mimicry
seems to be strongly driven by social demands and
controlled by brain regions linked to social cognition. I
present a neurocognitive model which can account for these
findings. Finally, I will present new data on how people
imitate and recognise imitation in virtual reality, and will
consider how human-avatar interactions can help in the
study of social neuroscience.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>The role of interoceptive and proprioceptive inference in Theory of Mind</title>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>Sasha Ondobaka</title>
        <p>Inferring the intentions and beliefs of another is an ability
that is fundamental for social and affiliative interactions. A
substantial amount of empirical evidence suggests that
making sense of another’s intentional and belief states (i.e.
theory of mind) relies on exteroceptive (e.g. visual and
auditory) and proprioceptive (i.e. motor) signals. Yet,
despite its pivotal role in the guidance of behaviour, the role
of the observer’s interoceptive (visceral) processing in
understanding another’s internal states remains unexplored.
Predicting and keeping track of interoceptive bodily states –
which inform intentions and beliefs that guide behaviour –
is one of the fundamental purposes of the human brain. In
this talk, I will focus on the role of interoceptive and
proprioceptive predictions, prescribed by the free-energy
principle, in making sense of internal states that cause
another’s behaviour. We will discuss how multimodal
expectations induced at deep (high) hierarchical levels – that
necessarily entail interoceptive predictions – contribute to
inference about others that is at the heart of theory of mind.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Baldwin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Baird</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2001</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Discerning intentions in dynamic human action</article-title>
          .
          <source>Trends in cognitive sciences, 5</source>
          ,
          <fpage>171</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>178</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Becchio</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sartori</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Castiello</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>U.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2010</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Toward you: the social side of actions</article-title>
          .
          <source>Current Directions in Psychological Science</source>
          ,
          <volume>19</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>183</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>188</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gallagher</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2008</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Direct perception in the intersubjective context</article-title>
          .
          <source>Consciousness and Cognition</source>
          ,
          <volume>17</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>535</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>543</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kilner</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Friston</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K. J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Frith</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C. D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2007</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Predictive coding: An account of the Mirror Neuron system</article-title>
          .
          <source>Cognitive Processing</source>
          ,
          <volume>8</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>159</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>166</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jacob</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>2013</year>
          ).
          <article-title>How from action-mirroring to intentionascription? Consciousness</article-title>
          and Cognition,
          <volume>22</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1132</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1141</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Runeson</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Frykholm</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1983</year>
          ).
          <article-title>Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</source>
          ,
          <volume>112</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>585</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>615</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>