Better Together: 14-Month-Old Infants Expect Agents to Cooperate.

Humans engage in cooperative activities from early on and the breadth of human cooperation is unparalleled. Human preference for cooperation might reflect cognitive and motivational mechanisms that drive engagement in cooperative activities. Here we investigate early indices of humans' cooperative abilities and test whether 14-month-old infants expect agents to prefer cooperative over individual goal achievement. Three groups of infants saw videos of agents facing a choice between two actions that led to identical rewards but differed in the individual costs. Our results show that, in line with prior research, infants expect agents to make instrumentally rational choices and prefer the less costly of two individual action alternatives. In contrast, when one of the action alternatives is cooperative, infants expect agents to choose cooperation over individual action, even though the cooperative action demands more effort from each agent to achieve the same outcome. Finally, we do not find evidence that infants expect agents to choose the less costly alternative when both options entail cooperative action. Combined, these results indicate an ontogenetically early expectation of cooperation, and raise interesting implications and questions regarding the nature of infants' representations of cooperative actions and their utility.

Flexible Cultural Learning Through Action Coordination.

The cultural transmission of technical know-how has proven vital to the success of our species. The broad diversity of learning contexts and social configurations, as well as the various kinds of coordinated interactions they involve, speaks to our capacity to flexibly adapt to and succeed in transmitting vital knowledge in various learning contexts. Although often recognized by ethnographers, the flexibility of cultural learning has so far received little attention in terms of cognitive mechanisms. We argue that a key feature of the flexibility of cultural learning is that both the models and learners recruit cognitive mechanisms of action coordination to modulate their behavior contingently on the behavior of their partner, generating a process of mutual adaptation supporting the successful transmission of technical skills in diverse and fluctuating learning environments. We propose that the study of cultural learning would benefit from the experimental methods, results, and insights of joint-action research and, complementarily, that the field of joint-action research could expand its scope by integrating a learning and cultural dimension. Bringing these two fields of research together promises to enrich our understanding of cultural learning, its contextual flexibility, and joint action coordination.

What makes us act together? On the cognitive models supporting humans' decisions for joint action.

We face tasks every day that we can solve alone but decide to solve together with others. When do we choose to act together vs. alone? How long do we persist in working together when doing so is difficult? Do we prefer to act together when times are uncertain? An open question in joint action research is under what conditions humans prefer to act together or alone to achieve a certain goal, and whether their preference is based on a utility calculus that takes into account the costs and benefits associated with individual and joint action alternatives. Research on cooperation reveals that frequent engagement in joint activities provides high survival benefits, as it allows individuals to achieve goals together that are otherwise unavailable. Yet, survival advantage does not wholly explain the reasons for human cooperative behavior. In fact, humans are motivated to cooperate even when it is not necessary to achieve an outcome. Research in cognitive science suggests that navigating the potential costs of joint actions is a challenge for humans, and that joint actions might provide individuals with rewards that go beyond the achievement of instrumental goals. We here address the influence of key factors on the decision to engage in joint action, such as the coordination costs arising when acting together compared to alone and the social and instrumental rewards expected when acting together compared to alone. Addressing these questions will provide critical insight for the design of cognitive models of human decisions for cooperation.

Human adults prefer to cooperate even when it is costly.

Joint actions are cooperative activities where humans coordinate their actions to achieve individual and shared goals. While the motivation to engage in joint action is clear when a goal cannot be achieved by individuals alone, we asked whether humans are motivated to act together even when acting together is not necessary and implies incurring additional costs compared to individual goal achievement. Using a utility-based empirical approach, we investigated the extent of humans' preference for joint action over individual action, when the instrumental costs of performing joint actions outweigh the benefits. The results of five experiments showed that human adults have a stable preference for joint action, even if individual action is more effective to achieve a certain goal. We propose that such preferences can be understood as ascribing additional reward value to performing actions together.

Evaluating the relative contributions of copying and reconstruction processes in cultural transmission episodes.

The ability to transmit information between individuals through social learning is a foundational component of cultural evolution. However, how this transmission occurs is still debated. On the one hand, the copying account draws parallels with biological mechanisms for genetic inheritance, arguing that learners copy what they observe and novel variations occur through random copying errors. On the other hand, the reconstruction account claims that, rather than directly copying behaviour, learners reconstruct the information that they believe to be most relevant on the basis of pragmatic inference, environmental and contextual cues. Distinguishing these two accounts empirically is difficult based on data from typical transmission chain studies because the predictions they generate frequently overlap. In this study we present a methodological approach that generates different predictions of these accounts by manipulating the task context between model and learner in a transmission episode. We then report an empirical proof-of-concept that applies this approach. The results show that, when a model introduces context-dependent embedded signals to their actions that are not intended to be transmitted, it is possible to empirically distinguish between competing predictions made by these two accounts. Our approach can therefore serve to understand the underlying cognitive mechanisms at play in cultural transmission and can make important contributions to the debate between preservative and reconstructive schools of thought.

Understanding joint action: Current theoretical and empirical approaches.

Joint actions are omnipresent, ranging from a handshake between two people to the coordination of groups of people playing in an orchestra. We are highly skilled at coordinating our actions with those of others to reach common goals and rely on this ability throughout our daily lives. What are the social, cognitive and neural processes underlying this ability? How do others around us influence our task representations? How does joint action influence interpersonal interactions? How do language and gesture support joint action? What differentiates joint action from individual action? This article forms an introductory editorial to the field of joint action. It accompanies contributions to the special issue entitled "Current Issues in Joint Action Research". The issue brings together conceptual and empirical approaches on different topics, ranging from lower-level issues such as the link between perception and joint action, to higher-level issues such as language as a form of joint action.

Infants understand collaboration: Neural evidence for 9-month-olds' attribution of shared goals to coordinated joint actions.

Interpreting others' actions as goal-directed, even when the actions are unfamiliar, is indispensable for social learning, and can be particularly important for infants, whose own action repertoire is limited. Indeed, young infants have been shown to attribute goals to unfamiliar actions as early as 3 months of age, but this ability appears restricted to actions performed by individuals. In contrast, attributing shared goals to actions performed by multiple individuals seems to emerge only in the second year of life. Considering the restrictions that this would impose on infants' understanding and learning from interactions in their environment, we reexamine this ability by introducing 9-month-old infants to simple joint actions, in which two agents coordinate their actions toward the same goal. To establish whether infants formed an expectation about future actions of these agents, infants' cortical activity was measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The hemodynamic response, recorded in (p)STS, indicated that infants attributed goals to simultaneous and coordinated joint actions of two individuals. Thus, even prior to actively engaging in collaborative activities themselves, infants can attribute shared goals to observed joint actions, enabling infants to learn from, and about, the complementary roles of social interactions, a central characteristic of human culture.

How does a partner's motor variability affect joint action?

Motor learning studies demonstrate that an individual's natural motor variability predicts the rate at which she learns a motor task. Individuals exhibiting higher variability learn motor tasks faster, presumably because variability fosters exploration of a wider space of motor parameters. However, it is unclear how individuals regulate variability while learning a motor task together with a partner who perturbs their movements. In the current study, we investigated whether and how variability affects performance and learning in such joint actions. Participants learned to jointly perform a sequence of movements with a confederate who was either highly variable or less variable in her movements. A haptic coupling between the actors led to translation of partner's movement variability into a force perturbation. We tested how the variability and predictability of force perturbations coming from a partner foster or hamper individual and joint performance. In experiment 1, the confederate produced more or less variable range of force perturbations that occurred in an unpredictable order. In experiment 2, the confederate produced more or less variable force perturbations in a predictable order. In experiment 3, the confederate produced more or less variable force perturbations in which the magnitude of force delivered was predictable whereas the direction of the force was unpredictable. We analysed individual performance, measured as movement accuracy and joint performance, measured as interpersonal asynchrony. Results indicated that in all three experiments, participants successfully regulated the variability of their own movements. However, individual performance was worse when partner produced highly variable force perturbations in an unpredictable order. Interestingly, predictability of force perturbations offset the detrimental effects of variability on individual performance. Furthermore, participants in the high variability condition achieved higher flexibility and resilience for a wide range of force perturbations, when the partner produced predictable movements. Participants improved their joint performance with a highly variable partner only when the partner produced partially predictable movements. Our results indicate that individuals involved in a joint action selectively rely on either their own or their partner's variability (or both) for benefitting individual and joint action performance, depending on the predictability of the partner' movements.

The engaging nature of interactive gestures.

The social interactions that we experience from early infancy often involve actions that are not strictly instrumental but engage the recipient by eliciting a (complementary) response. Interactive gestures may have privileged access to our perceptual and motor systems either because of their intrinsically engaging nature or as a result of extensive social learning. We compared these two hypotheses in a series of behavioral experiments by presenting individuals with interactive gestures that call for motor responses to complement the interaction ('hand shaking', 'requesting', 'high-five') and with communicative gestures that are equally socially relevant and salient, but do not strictly require a response from the recipient ('Ok', 'Thumbs up', 'Peace'). By means of a spatial compatibility task, we measured the interfering power of these task-irrelevant stimuli on the behavioral responses of individuals asked to respond to a target. Across three experiments, our results showed that the interactive gestures impact on response selection and reduce spatial compatibility effects as compared to the communicative (non-interactive) gestures. Importantly, this effect was independent of the activation of specific social scripts that may interfere with response selection. Overall, our results show that interactive gestures have privileged access to our perceptual and motor systems, possibly because they entail an automatic preparation to respond that involuntary engages the motor system of the observers. We discuss the implications from a developmental and neurophysiological point of view.

Reciprocal information flow and role distribution support joint action coordination.

Many joint actions require task partners to temporally coordinate actions that follow different spatial patterns. This creates the need to find trade-offs between temporal coordination and spatial alignment. To study coordination under incongruent spatial and temporal demands, we devised a novel coordination task that required task partners to synchronize their actions while tracing different shapes that implied conflicting velocity profiles. In three experiments, we investigated whether coordination under incongruent demands is best achieved through mutually coupled predictions or through a clear role distribution with only one task partner adjusting to the other. Participants solved the task of trading off spatial and temporal coordination demands equally well when mutually perceiving each other's actions without any role distribution, and when acting in a leader-follower configuration where the leader was unable to see the follower's actions. Coordination was significantly worse when task partners who had been assigned roles could see each other's actions. These findings make three contributions to our understanding of coordination mechanisms in joint action. First, they show that mutual prediction facilitates coordination under incongruent demands, demonstrating the importance of coupled predictive models in a wide range of coordination contexts. Second, they show that mutual alignment of velocity profiles in the absence of a leader-follower dynamic is more wide-spread than previously thought. Finally, they show that role distribution can result in equally effective coordination as mutual prediction without role assignment, provided that the role distribution is not arbitrarily imposed but determined by (lack of) perceptual access to a partner's actions.

Autistic traits affect interpersonal motor coordination by modulating strategic use of role-based behavior.

BACKGROUND: Despite the fact that deficits in social communication and interaction are at the core of Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC), no study has yet tested individuals on a continuum from neurotypical development to autism in an on-line, cooperative, joint action task. In our study, we aimed to assess whether the degree of autistic traits affects participants' ability to modulate their motor behavior while interacting in a Joint Grasping task and according to their given role. METHODS: Sixteen pairs of adult participants played a cooperative social interactive game in which they had to synchronize their reach-to-grasp movements. Pairs were comprised of one ASC and one neurotypical with no cognitive disability. In alternate experimental blocks, one participant knew what action to perform (instructed role) while the other had to infer it from his/her partner's action (adaptive role). When in the adaptive condition, participants were told to respond with an action that was either opposite or similar to their partner. Participants also played a non-social control game in which they had to synchronize with a non-biological stimulus. RESULTS: In the social interactive task, higher degree of autistic traits predicted less ability to modulate joint action according to one's interactive role. In the non-social task, autistic traits did not predict differences in movement preparation and planning, thus ruling out the possibility that social interactive task results were due to basic motor or executive function difficulties. Furthermore, when participants played the non-social game, the higher their autistic traits, the more they were interfered by the non-biological stimulus. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows for the first time that high autistic traits predict a stereotypical interaction style when individuals are required to modulate their movements in order to coordinate with their partner according to their role in a joint action task. Specifically, the infrequent emergence of role-based motor behavior modulation during on-line motor cooperation in participants with high autistic traits sheds light on the numerous difficulties ASC have in nonverbal social interactions.

Interactional leader-follower sensorimotor communication strategies during repetitive joint actions.

Non-verbal communication is the basis of animal interactions. In dyadic leader-follower interactions, leaders master the ability to carve their motor behaviour in order to 'signal' their future actions and internal plans while these signals influence the behaviour of follower partners, who automatically tend to imitate the leader even in complementary interactions. Despite their usefulness, signalling and imitation have a biomechanical cost, and it is unclear how this cost-benefits trade-off is managed during repetitive dyadic interactions that present learnable regularities. We studied signalling and imitation dynamics (indexed by movement kinematics) in pairs of leaders and followers during a repetitive, rule-based, joint action. Trial-by-trial Bayesian model comparison was used to evaluate the relation between signalling, imitation and pair performance. The different models incorporate different hypotheses concerning the factors (past interactions versus online movements) influencing the leader's signalling (or follower's imitation) kinematics. This approach showed that (i) leaders' signalling strategy improves future couple performance, (ii) leaders used the history of past interactions to shape their signalling, (iii) followers' imitative behaviour is more strongly affected by the online movement of the leader. This study elucidates the ways online sensorimotor communication help individuals align their task representations and ultimately improves joint action performance.