Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

How Humans Optimize Their Interaction with the Environment: The Impact of Action Context on Human Perception

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports empirical findings on human performance in an experiment comprising a perceptual task and a motor task. Such findings should be considered in design of robots, since drawing inspiration from natural solutions not only should prove beneficial for artificial systems but also human-robot interaction should then become more efficient and safe. Humans have developed various mechanisms to optimize the way actions are performed and the effects they induce. Optimization of action planning (e.g., grasping, reaching or lifting objects) requires efficient selection of action-relevant features. Selection might also depend on the environmental context in which an action takes place. The present study investigated how action context influences perceptual processing in action planning. The experimental paradigm comprised two independent tasks: (1) a perceptual visual search task and (2) a grasping or a pointing movement. Reaction times in the visual search task were measured as a function of the movement type (grasping vs. pointing) and context complexity (context varying along one dimension vs. context varying along two dimensions). Results showed that action context influenced reaction times, which suggests a close bidirectional link between action and perception as well as an impact of environmental action context on perceptual selection in the course of action planning. These findings are discussed in the context of application for robotics and design of users’ interfaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. James W (1890) Principles of psychology. Holt, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Greenwald AG (1970) Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychol Rev 77:73–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wolpert DM, Kawato M (1998) Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control. Neural Netw 11:1317–1329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allport A (1987) Selection for action: some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In: Heuer H, Sanders AF (eds) Perspectives on perception and action. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 395–419

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Ann Rev Neurosci 27:169–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hommel B, Müsseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W (2001) The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci 24:849–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Prinz W (1997) Perception and action planning. Eur J Cogn Psychol 9:129–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Craighero L, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G, Umiltà CA (1999) Action for perception: a motor-visual attentional effect. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25:1673–1692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schubotz RI, von Cramon DY (2002) Predicting perceptual events activates corresponding motor schemes in lateral premotor cortex: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 15:787–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15:20–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rossetti Y, Pisella L, Vighetto A (2003) Optic ataxia revisited: visually guided action versus immediate visuomotor control. Exp Brain Res 153:171–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Humphreys GW, Riddoch MJ (2001) Detection by action: neuropsychological evidence for action-defined templates in search. Nature Neurosci 4:84–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gibson EJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw RE, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting and knowing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 127–143

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tucker R, Ellis M (2001) The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Vis Cogn 8:769–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grèzes J, Decety J (2002) Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia 40:212–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grafton ST, Fadiga L, Arbib MA, Rizzolatti G (1997) Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. NeuroImage 6:231–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bekkering H, Neggers SFW (2002) Visual search is modulated by action intentions. Psychol Sci 13:370–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fagioli S, Hommel B, Schubotz RI (2007) Intentional control of attention: action planning primes action related stimulus dimensions. Psychol Res 71:22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wykowska A, Schubö A, Hommel B (2009) How you move is what you see: action planning biases selection in visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35:1755–1769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Turner RM (1998) Context-mediated behavior for intelligent agents. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 48:307–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chun MM, Jiang Y (1998) Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cogn Psychol 36:28–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Duncan J, Humphreys GW (1989) Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol Rev 96:433–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kunar MA, Flusberg S, Horowitz TS, Wolfe JM (2007) Does contextual cuing guide the deployment of attention? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:816–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Olson IR, Chun MM, Allison T (2001) Contextual guidance of attention. Human intracranial event-related potential evidence for feedback modulation in anatomically early, temporally late stages of visual processing. Brain 124:1417–1425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schankin A, Schubö A (2009) Cognitive processes facilitated by contextual cueing. Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 46:668–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schubö A, Schröger E, Meinecke C (2004) Texture segmentation and visual search for pop-out targets: an ERP study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 21:317–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schubö A, Wykowska A, Müller HJ (2007) Detecting pop-out targets in contexts of varying homogeneity: investigating homogeneity coding with event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Brain Res 1138:136–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bundesen C (1990) A theory of visual attention. Psychol Rev 97:523–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Ann Rev Neurosci 18:193–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wolfe JM (1994) Guided search 2.0: a revised model of visual search. Psychon Bull Rev 1:202–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Horswill I (1994) Specialization of perceptual processes. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

  32. Okada K, Kojima M, Sagawa Y, Ichino T, Sato K, Inaba M (2006) Vision based behavior verification system of humanoid robot for daily environment tasks. In: 6th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, Humanoids 2006, pp 7–12

  33. Itti L, Arbib M (2006) Attention and the minimal subscene. In: Arbib MA (ed) Action to language via the mirror neuron system. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 289–346

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. Beetz M, Stulp F, Esden-Tempski P, Fedrizzi A, Klank U, Kresse I, Maldonado A, Ruiz-Ugalde F (2010) Generality and legibility in mobile manipulation. Auton Robots J (special issue on mobile manipulation)

  35. Beetz M, Jain D, Mösenlechner L, Tenorth M (2010) Towards performing everyday manipulation activities. Robot Auton Syst

  36. Beetz M, Blodow N, Klank U, Marton Z, Pangercic D, Rusu R (2009) COP-MAN perception for mobile pick-and-place in human living environments. Workshop, IROS

  37. Klank U, Pangercic D, Rusu R, Beetz M (2009) Real-time CAD model matching for mobile manipulation and grasping. In: 9th IEEE-RAS international conference on humanoid robots, Paris, France, December 7–10

  38. Maldonado A, Klank U, Beetz M (2010) Robotic grasping of unmodeled objects using time-of-flight range data and finger torque information. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, IROS, 2010 (accepted for publication)

  39. Cabibihan J-J, So WC, Nazar M, Ge SS (2009) Pointing gestures for a robot mediated communication interface. In: Xie M et al (eds) ICIRA 2009. LNAI, vol 5928. Springer, Berlin, pp 67–77

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Psychology, Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München, Germany

    Agnieszka Wykowska & Anna Schubö

  2. Computer Science Department, Chair IX, Technische Universität, München, Germany

    Alexis Maldonado & Michael Beetz

Authors
  1. Agnieszka Wykowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexis Maldonado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Beetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna Schubö
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agnieszka Wykowska.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wykowska, A., Maldonado, A., Beetz, M. et al. How Humans Optimize Their Interaction with the Environment: The Impact of Action Context on Human Perception. Int J of Soc Robotics 3, 223–231 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0078-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-010-0078-3

Keywords