Dataset Information

Adults Do Not Distinguish Action Intentions Based on Movement Kinematics Presented in Naturalistic Settings.

ABSTRACT: Predicting others' actions is an essential part of acting in the social world. Action kinematics have been proposed to be a cue about others' intentions. It is still an open question as to whether adults can use kinematic information in naturalistic settings when presented as a part of a richer visual scene than previously examined. We investigated adults' intention perceptions from kinematics using naturalistic stimuli in two experiments. In experiment 1, thirty participants watched grasp-to-drink and grasp-to-place movements and identified the movement intention (to drink or to place), whilst their mouth-opening muscle activity was measured with electromyography (EMG) to examine participants' motor simulation of the observed actions. We found anecdotal evidence that participants could correctly identify the intentions from the action kinematics, although we found no evidence for increased activation of their mylohyoid muscle during the observation of grasp-to-drink compared to grasp-to-place actions. In pre-registered experiment 2, fifty participants completed the same task online. With the increased statistical power, we found strong evidence that participants were not able to discriminate intentions based on movement kinematics. Together, our findings suggest that the role of action kinematics in intention perception is more complex than previously assumed. Although previous research indicates that under certain circumstances observers can perceive and act upon intention-specific kinematic information, perceptual differences in everyday scenes or the observers' ability to use kinematic information in more naturalistic scenes seems limited.

SUBMITTER: Rutkowska JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8234011 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe increasing popularity of objective gait analysis makes application in prepurchase examinations (PPE) a logical next step. Therefore, there is a need to have more understanding of asymmetry during a PPE in horses described on clinical evaluation as subtly lame.ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to objectively compare asymmetry in horses raising minor vet concerns in a PPE and in horses raising major vet concerns with that found in horses presented with subtle single-limb lameness, and to investigate the effect of age/discipline on the clinicians' interpretation of asymmetry on the classification of minor vet concerns in a PPE.Study designClinical case-series.MethodsHorses presented for PPE (n = 98) or subjectively evaluated as single limb low-grade (1-2/5) lame (n = 24, 13 forelimb lame, 11 hindlimb lame), from the patient population of a single clinic, were enrolled in the study provided that owners were willing to participate. Horses undergoing PPE were assigned a classification of having minor vet concerns (n = 84) or major vet concerns (n = 14) based on findings during the dynamic-orthopaedic part of the PPE. Lame horses were only included if pain-related lameness was confirmed by an objective improvement after diagnostic analgesia exceeding daily variation determined for equine symmetry parameters using optical motion capture. Clinical evaluation was performed by six different clinicians, each with ≥8 years of equine orthopaedic experience. Vertical movement symmetry was measured using optical motion capture, simultaneously with the orthopaedic examination. Data were analysed using previously described parameters and mixed model analysis and least squares means were used to calculate differences between groups.ResultsThere was no effect of age or discipline on the levels of asymmetry within PPE horses raising minor vet concerns. MinDiff and RUD of the head discriminated between forelimb lame and PPE horses raising minor vet concerns; MinDiff, MaxDiff, RUD of the Pelvis, HHDswing and HHDstance did so for hindlimb lameness. Two lameness patterns differentiated both forelimb and hindlimb lame from PPE horses with minor vet concerns: RUD Poll + MinDiff Withers - RUD Pelvis and RUD Pelvis + RUD Poll - MinDiff Withers. Correcting for vertical range of motion enabled differentiation of PPE horses with minor vet concerns from PPE horses with major vet concerns.Main limitationsObjective data only based on trot on soft surface, limited number of PPE horses with major vet concerns.ConclusionsCombinations of kinematic parameters discriminate between PPE horses with minor vet concerns and subtly lame horses, though overlap exists.

Dataset Information

Adults Do Not Distinguish Action Intentions Based on Movement Kinematics Presented in Naturalistic Settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets