![]() These discoveries were in contradiction with the classical cognitive theories at the time which depicted the human mind as an information processor that relied on abstract, a-modal representations of the world. Much like speech in humans, the same sensorimotor interactions were also observed in the audio-motor domain, where listening to the typical sound produced by a learned action activated premotor areas in monkeys (e.g., Kohler et al., 2002). They were first studied in the visuomotor domain where the observation of an action led to the same activation as the actual action being performed by the observer. These mirror neurons were described as a specific type of neurons that activated during both action observation and performed actions, directly coupling perception to action. Insights into the neural substrate of this motor simulation in perception came with the discovery of the mirror neuron system in chimpanzees ( Gallese et al., 1996 Rizzolatti et al., 1996 Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004 for a review). They suggested that the perception or imagery of an action led to the internal simulation of that action at a neural level. A few years later, Jeannerod (1994), Decety (1996), as well as Berthoz (1997) suggested that there was a motor aspect in the perceptual system. Liberman and Mattingly (1985) further theorized about this in their motor theory of speech perception, postulating that hearing speech automatically activated the corresponding motor commands necessary to produce the sounds, ultimately facilitating comprehension in the listener. In more recent years, McGurk and MacDonald (1976) notably demonstrated that the auditory perception of spoken sounds interacted with the perception of the facial movements used to produce syllables (i.e., the McGurk effect). William James famously claimed that “ every representation of a movement awakens in some degree the actual movement which is its object” in his ideomotor theory of action ( James, 1890). The notion that perception is linked to action is not new. In general, our results give support to the notion that rhythmic music is processed in a motoric fashion. Results are discussed in terms of the link between perception and action (i.e., motor/perceptual resonance). Despite not instructed to do so, participants also occasionally synchronized with music. Furthermore, eight strategies put in place by participants to cope with the task were unveiled. ![]() Results showed that participants were distinctively influenced by the background music depending on the movement used with the tapping task being consistently the most influenced. No instruction on whether to synchronize with the music was given. The task of the participant was to maintain a comfortable pace for the four movements (self-paced) while not paying attention to the music. A specific tempo was maintained for 20 s before a 2 s transition to the higher tempo. The musical tempo of each song increased from 60 BPM to 120 BPM by 6 BPM increments. Musical stimuli consisted of computer-generated MIDI musical pieces with a 4/4 metrical structure. In order to test this, we conducted an experiment where participants performed four different effector-specific movements (lower leg, whole arm and forearm oscillation and finger tapping) while rhythmic music was playing in the background. Based on these findings, we were interested in knowing how and when the perception of rhythmic music could resonate with the motor system in the context of these constrained oscillatory movements. In accordance with biomechanical constraints accounts of motion, we found that movements followed a hierarchical organization depending on the proximal/distal characteristic of the limb used. ![]() In a pilot study, we examined the kinematic parameters of self-paced oscillatory movements, walking and finger tapping using optical motion capture. Inspired by theories of perception-action coupling and embodied music cognition, we investigated how rhythmic music perception impacts self-paced oscillatory movements. 4Department of Robotics, Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genoa, Italy.3Institut Universitaire de France, Université de Bourgogne, UFR STAPS, Dijon, France.2Unité 1093, Cognition, Action et Plasticité Sensorimotrice, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Dijon, France.1Laboratoire d'Etude de l'Apprentissage et du Développement, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France.Mathieu Peckel 1 *, Thierry Pozzo 2,3,4 and Emmanuel Bigand 1
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |