ArticleScientific reports2018
Evidence for a dyadic motor plan in joint action.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Joint action goals reduce visuomotor interference effects from a partner's incongruent actions.Scientific reports · 2019Trial
- Successful coordination emerges from aligned self-predictions in a dynamic motor interaction.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- An evolutionary conserved neural mechanism for interpersonal coordination in primates.Science advances · 2026Article
- Representing relations between individual contributions: when does joint action planning facilitate task performance?Psychological research · 2026Article
- Do Individual and Joint Action Goals Modulate Imitative Response Tendencies?Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Effects of emergent and planned interpersonal synchronization on individual spatiotemporal variability.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Sharing errors with human and non-human agents.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
- Reading out bodily cues to predict interactions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Interpersonal Physiological Synchrony During Dyadic Joint Action Is Increased by Task Novelty and Reduced by Social Anxiety.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Distinct neural dynamics in joint versus side-by-side actions: insights from dual EEG.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2025Article
- Coordinated social interactions are supported by integrated neural representations.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024Article
- Motor styles in action: Developing a computational framework for operationalization of motor distances.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Self-other distinction modulates the sense of self-agency during joint actions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Pleasantness makes a good time: musical consonance shapes interpersonal synchronization in dyadic joint action.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Visuo-motor interference is modulated by task interactivity: A kinematic study.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Article
- Cortico-cerebellar audio-motor regions coordinate self and other in musical joint action.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- When action prediction grows old: An fMRI study.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
- The influence of object size on second-order planning in an overturned cup task.Psychological research · 2022Article
- What makes us act together? On the cognitive models supporting humans' decisions for joint action.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2022Article
- Joint control of visually guided actions involves concordant increases in behavioural and neural coupling.Communications biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
What mechanisms distinguish interactive from non-interactive actions? To answer this question we tested participants while they took turns playing music with a virtual partner: in the interactive joint action condition, the participants played a melody together with their partner by grasping (C note) or pressing (G note) a cube-shaped instrument, alternating in playing one note each. In the non-interactive control condition, players' behavior was not guided by a shared melody, so that the partner's actions and notes were irrelevant to the participant. In both conditions, the participant's and partner's actions were physically congruent (e.g., grasp-grasp) or incongruent (e.g., grasp-point), and the partner's association between actions and notes was coherent with the participant's or reversed. Performance in the non-interactive condition was only affected by physical incongruence, whereas joint action was only affected when the partner's action-note associations were reversed. This shows that task interactivity shapes the sensorimotor coding of others' behaviors, and that joint action is based on active prediction of the partner's action effects rather than on passive action imitation. We suggest that such predictions are based on Dyadic Motor Plans that represent both the agent's and the partner's contributions to the interaction goal, like playing a melody together.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.