WEBVTT 00:00:03.517 --> 00:00:10.517 This is the Convergent Science Network podcast. Leading researchers in the domain 00:00:10.517 --> 00:00:16.797 of neuroscience, brain theory and technology are interviewed by Paul Verschoor and Tony Prescott. 00:00:19.357 --> 00:00:23.377 This is Paul Verschoor with the Convergent Science Network podcast. 00:00:24.177 --> 00:00:27.077 And this episode that we also recorded as part of our 00:00:27.077 --> 00:00:30.317 CSN Barcelona Cognition Brain Technology Summer School 00:00:30.317 --> 00:00:34.537 I'm talking with Gunter Knoppleg and Gunter 00:00:34.537 --> 00:00:37.677 um your the topic 00:00:37.677 --> 00:00:40.357 of your presentation is joint action those are actually the 00:00:40.357 --> 00:00:43.897 main topic of your of your research right and you decomposed 00:00:43.897 --> 00:00:46.857 um joint action uh in a 00:00:46.857 --> 00:00:49.637 number of let's say constituent components that you sort of 00:00:49.637 --> 00:00:52.477 try to then again investigate in themselves 00:00:52.477 --> 00:00:55.397 so why don't you can you explain to me how you see 00:00:55.397 --> 00:00:59.737 joint action and how do you see this decomposed in its subcomponents right okay 00:00:59.737 --> 00:01:05.097 so um i mean i'm i'm most interested in joint action where people actually perform 00:01:05.097 --> 00:01:09.597 some sort of skilled action together like playing football or you know trapeze 00:01:09.597 --> 00:01:14.637 artists and um uh one big question in this field is 00:01:14.777 --> 00:01:17.617 how do they achieve temporal coordination? 00:01:17.997 --> 00:01:24.937 How do they not miss each other? How do they pass the ball in time to score a goal and so on? 00:01:25.217 --> 00:01:30.137 So there are different mechanisms to actually achieve this, psychologically speaking. 00:01:32.217 --> 00:01:38.157 And it starts, and I was actually describing five different ones, 00:01:38.917 --> 00:01:44.477 ranging from entrainment to providing signals for each other that it's of the coordination. 00:01:45.057 --> 00:01:50.597 Okay, so you had entrainment, speeding, simulation, monitoring, 00:01:50.857 --> 00:01:52.197 and then signaling. Exactly. 00:01:54.037 --> 00:01:59.057 So it would be... But now let's backtrack a bit to the joint action issue itself. 00:01:59.457 --> 00:02:03.197 So what makes joint action special as compared to, 00:02:03.919 --> 00:02:10.419 Other forms of action. Right. So in individual action, the only thing you need 00:02:10.419 --> 00:02:13.119 to do is get your own action right somehow. 00:02:13.399 --> 00:02:17.379 Whereas in joint action, what you need to do is you need to coordinate your 00:02:17.379 --> 00:02:20.319 action with somebody else in space and time. 00:02:20.699 --> 00:02:26.099 And it's actually even in the most simple action, like handing a glass to somebody 00:02:26.099 --> 00:02:29.739 else, it's actually from the point of view of the motor system. 00:02:29.739 --> 00:02:34.819 That's a very tricky task because, for instance, you need to take the other's 00:02:34.819 --> 00:02:37.939 actions into account in order to pass the glass on. 00:02:38.179 --> 00:02:42.559 And the question is, how can this be achieved? And there are many, 00:02:42.599 --> 00:02:46.439 many sort of real-time constraints where the motor system has to solve very 00:02:46.439 --> 00:02:49.539 difficult problems in a very short sort of time window. 00:02:50.299 --> 00:02:56.419 But then I could argue, okay, but the motor system is already tuned to deal 00:02:56.419 --> 00:03:00.519 with a dynamic world. It might not be an intentional world, but a dynamic world. 00:03:00.699 --> 00:03:04.619 So what then would make joint action different from, let's say, catching a ball? 00:03:04.999 --> 00:03:10.159 Right. I mean, it's not necessarily qualitatively different all the time, 00:03:10.279 --> 00:03:14.579 but it's certainly true that biological movement patterns are most of the time 00:03:14.579 --> 00:03:17.599 different from simple physical movements. 00:03:17.999 --> 00:03:21.639 I mean, they can also be described, of course, as physical movement, 00:03:21.779 --> 00:03:27.619 but I think the intentionality behind it makes it more complex and also, 00:03:27.799 --> 00:03:32.299 in a sense, there's more variety of movements, so to say. 00:03:32.459 --> 00:03:36.959 And it follows different laws than simply sort of gravity. 00:03:39.163 --> 00:03:42.963 Because the kinematics of human movement, for instance, they reflect actually 00:03:42.963 --> 00:03:49.143 the working of a very complex apparatus that functions, 00:03:49.343 --> 00:03:55.383 that produces, you know, kinematic patterns that are quite different than the 00:03:55.383 --> 00:03:59.523 pattern that a ball has, you know, in a simple trajectory, 00:03:59.843 --> 00:04:02.043 let's say. Okay, so can you give an example of that difference? 00:04:02.643 --> 00:04:08.683 Yeah, I mean, think about two players in football, where actually, 00:04:08.783 --> 00:04:11.803 you know, one is asked to anticipate where the other is going, 00:04:12.063 --> 00:04:16.243 in order to place the ball in the right spot. 00:04:17.443 --> 00:04:21.123 This could involve like, quite an intricate prediction, 00:04:21.383 --> 00:04:24.883 you know, that requires knowing the player, which way will he turn, 00:04:25.083 --> 00:04:28.323 there will be more sort of cognitive level, but it could It could also imply 00:04:28.323 --> 00:04:33.463 something like how fast can he move and things like that. 00:04:33.623 --> 00:04:39.403 And all of these things implicitly or explicitly could go into the kicking of the ball. 00:04:39.823 --> 00:04:46.103 Right. Okay. So now let's turn to entrainment. So how should I think about entrainment 00:04:46.103 --> 00:04:47.523 in this context of joint action? 00:04:47.743 --> 00:04:53.343 Right. So entrainment is sort of perhaps the most simple way of getting people synchronized. 00:04:53.343 --> 00:05:01.363 And that's actually a process that is not necessarily only restricted to humans 00:05:01.363 --> 00:05:03.203 because it actually also works for clocks. 00:05:03.403 --> 00:05:09.123 So if your entrainment is a principle that actually comes out of physics and 00:05:09.123 --> 00:05:16.843 that just states that if you have an oscillation and if you have oscillating 00:05:16.843 --> 00:05:20.843 devices like a metronome and they have a physical coupling, 00:05:21.043 --> 00:05:24.323 they actually tend to go into phase with one another. 00:05:26.123 --> 00:05:32.523 And dynamical systems psychologists have actually made the point that the same 00:05:32.523 --> 00:05:37.263 sort of principles could hold for informational couplings, perceptual couplings between people, 00:05:38.123 --> 00:05:42.643 so that in a sense there's a general pull towards synchrony 00:05:43.061 --> 00:05:46.081 built into the systems so that people 00:05:46.081 --> 00:05:48.801 have a tendency if they 00:05:48.801 --> 00:05:51.461 perform sort of rhythmic movements to to be in 00:05:51.461 --> 00:05:55.581 synchrony with one another so for instance you can observe that when people 00:05:55.581 --> 00:06:01.641 many people cross a bridge or so that or walk close to each other they will 00:06:01.641 --> 00:06:06.981 tend to walk in the same speed and assimilate at speed so that and this is a 00:06:06.981 --> 00:06:09.961 very automatic process that people aren't aware of. 00:06:10.121 --> 00:06:12.281 They're just pulled towards this synchronization. Right. 00:06:12.541 --> 00:06:16.781 So do we know anything about the genesis of this? What's the generator of that synchronization? 00:06:17.681 --> 00:06:21.281 The generator? You mean like an internal clock? 00:06:21.641 --> 00:06:24.661 I don't know, yes. Well, look, earlier you said yourself, right? 00:06:24.741 --> 00:06:27.301 Oscillators would do this, right? So where's this oscillator? 00:06:28.341 --> 00:06:37.301 I think in a sense where this comes from is not… I mean, 00:06:37.301 --> 00:06:41.801 there's not really an explicit theory about you know oscillations in the brain 00:06:41.801 --> 00:06:43.401 that drive this sort of process, 00:06:44.121 --> 00:06:50.641 it's more a particular view in psychology that wants to see sort of social interactions 00:06:50.641 --> 00:06:53.261 between people partly driven, 00:06:53.981 --> 00:06:59.801 by these sort of coupled oscillations so that in a sense the whole human who 00:06:59.801 --> 00:07:04.661 is involved in this thing becomes the oscillator and the coupling is actually 00:07:04.661 --> 00:07:07.761 between people So it's not a very cognitivist position, 00:07:08.121 --> 00:07:14.861 it's more a sort of applying physical principles to the psychological domain. 00:07:15.021 --> 00:07:20.101 Right, but at what point in human behavior does this kind of coupling break down? 00:07:21.258 --> 00:07:26.378 Now, we are talking to each other, and at some level of description, 00:07:26.718 --> 00:07:30.718 I could say, well, in some state space, I could say we are coupled because I 00:07:30.718 --> 00:07:34.298 pose questions and you generate an answer and I try not to interrupt you and so on. 00:07:34.798 --> 00:07:39.718 Well, let's say at the level of our physical actions, there might be not a single 00:07:39.718 --> 00:07:41.978 signature of such coupling. 00:07:42.118 --> 00:07:46.258 So how far can this really go? Where does it break down, this idea of coupling? 00:07:46.258 --> 00:07:53.738 I think that this is sort of a very powerful way to look at interpersonal processing, 00:07:54.178 --> 00:07:57.778 but it is only one possibility. 00:07:58.298 --> 00:08:01.678 And I think that there are many types of social interactions and also joint 00:08:01.678 --> 00:08:05.178 actions that cannot be explained by simple entrainment. 00:08:05.178 --> 00:08:11.138 But I would still hold that even, so, you know, most of the time it's really 00:08:11.138 --> 00:08:17.898 used to explain unintentional cases of synchrony, so that people synchronize 00:08:17.898 --> 00:08:20.158 even though they don't want to, 00:08:20.278 --> 00:08:23.978 like simulating velocities and rocking chairs, things like that. 00:08:24.158 --> 00:08:28.258 Right. Or, you know, nodding their head like we do now in the same rhythm. 00:08:28.558 --> 00:08:33.618 In the same sort of temporal frequency. 00:08:33.998 --> 00:08:34.238 Mm-hmm. 00:08:36.198 --> 00:08:41.818 But it can, of course, also be used, let's say, in dance, as something that 00:08:41.818 --> 00:08:44.038 becomes part of an intentional joint action. 00:08:44.318 --> 00:08:48.678 But in these cases, of course, the pure synchronization is not enough. 00:08:50.298 --> 00:08:54.958 But it can actually help you to achieve what you want to achieve. 00:08:55.178 --> 00:08:59.258 But it's only sort of part of the processing. and 00:08:59.258 --> 00:09:03.738 in other cases I would say entrainment actually works against the coordination 00:09:03.738 --> 00:09:09.058 that is required because we don't always need to be in the same rhythm or in 00:09:09.058 --> 00:09:14.178 the same pattern exactly but the interesting thing is in some sense if it would 00:09:14.178 --> 00:09:17.738 be entrainment in the way you now just define it it would be. 00:09:19.079 --> 00:09:22.419 Actually invalidating the notion of joint action because action 00:09:22.419 --> 00:09:25.519 would imply that there's an intentional component to 00:09:25.519 --> 00:09:29.519 it while the entrainment would be unintentional right that's perhaps 00:09:29.519 --> 00:09:32.659 a little bit of a problem with our our definition of 00:09:32.659 --> 00:09:36.099 joint action which we want to be very broad so that 00:09:36.099 --> 00:09:39.599 uh when i say action it doesn't necessarily imply 00:09:39.599 --> 00:09:42.879 a uh an intention let's 00:09:42.879 --> 00:09:45.519 say so it can include just let's say 00:09:45.519 --> 00:09:48.439 behavioral patterns yes any kind 00:09:48.439 --> 00:09:51.159 yes okay so i wouldn't i wouldn't want to make 00:09:51.159 --> 00:09:56.239 a distinction between intention non-intentional action right away because there's 00:09:56.239 --> 00:10:01.179 so many cases where it's very difficult to to really draw the boundary between 00:10:01.179 --> 00:10:06.259 intentional unintentional action that um i think for our purpose which is sort 00:10:06.259 --> 00:10:09.219 of trying to find out the nuts and bolts of joint action. 00:10:09.359 --> 00:10:13.499 We rather work with a very broad definition of joint action, 00:10:13.639 --> 00:10:18.159 which basically says that we want to talk of a joint action for anything that 00:10:18.159 --> 00:10:23.939 involves coordination between people in space and time. So it's super broad. 00:10:24.859 --> 00:10:30.139 It ignores perhaps also a little bit philosophical sort of basic distinctions, 00:10:30.179 --> 00:10:36.799 but it's been so far very useful actually in trying going to sort of relate 00:10:36.799 --> 00:10:41.559 processes that people would normally think of as very different. 00:10:42.239 --> 00:10:46.639 Right, but it might also then lead to misclassifications, right? 00:10:46.759 --> 00:10:50.539 Imagine we get thrown out of a plane and we're falling down, 00:10:50.719 --> 00:10:52.999 free fall, flailing our arms and legs, 00:10:53.259 --> 00:10:57.699 then a psychologist using your definition could say, ah, there are entrained, 00:10:57.739 --> 00:11:04.379 but basically we're just both falling, racing towards earth and just in panic or flailing around. 00:11:05.399 --> 00:11:10.699 Right. I think, but I mean, this example, my analysis would be that the joint 00:11:10.699 --> 00:11:14.799 action stops in the moment when you've pushed me, for instance. 00:11:15.379 --> 00:11:17.979 And then, you know, what I'm trying to do is to save my life. 00:11:18.179 --> 00:11:21.499 And from then on, I would call it separate action. 00:11:21.499 --> 00:11:24.619 But in a sense uh i would 00:11:24.619 --> 00:11:28.859 perhaps even accept like you know an action like pushing somebody out as a plane 00:11:28.859 --> 00:11:34.739 out of the plane as something that could be conceived of as a joint action perhaps 00:11:34.739 --> 00:11:39.059 not with the same intended outcome but with different intended outcomes i know 00:11:39.059 --> 00:11:43.419 it gets tricky in a way but i don't want to have you know sort of um, 00:11:44.367 --> 00:11:48.367 Also, competition versus cooperativeness. 00:11:48.687 --> 00:11:54.087 I also want to stay away from that distinction because for these sort of rather 00:11:54.087 --> 00:11:56.707 low-level nuts and bolts coordination processes, 00:11:57.447 --> 00:12:01.567 it might not matter so much whether you're in a competitive game or whether 00:12:01.567 --> 00:12:04.727 you're trying to play cooperatively. 00:12:04.947 --> 00:12:08.967 For instance, in table tennis, you can do both. And the coordination processes 00:12:08.967 --> 00:12:10.427 might not be so different. 00:12:10.787 --> 00:12:14.627 Exactly. This is very good, right? Because by using a broad definition of law, 00:12:14.747 --> 00:12:17.507 you should look at, let's say, also the interaction of multiple factors. 00:12:17.627 --> 00:12:20.967 And otherwise, you will be really pushed, let's say, drawing boundaries maybe 00:12:20.967 --> 00:12:23.907 between them, which would not help you in understanding joint action. 00:12:24.027 --> 00:12:25.307 So this is to understand. 00:12:25.587 --> 00:12:30.007 But then, so we have entrainment. So now a lot of we were nodding and sort of 00:12:30.007 --> 00:12:32.967 we're smiling at regular intervals. So we're really untrained. 00:12:34.327 --> 00:12:38.847 But now we're speeding, right? So I'm speaking faster or slower. 00:12:38.847 --> 00:12:45.847 Or apparently contributing to our joint action. So how should I think about that? 00:12:46.227 --> 00:12:50.767 Yeah, I mean, entrainment is a process, you know, where we don't need to have 00:12:50.767 --> 00:12:52.867 any internal representations about one another. 00:12:53.007 --> 00:12:57.287 It just happens between us that we are pulled into something. 00:12:58.087 --> 00:13:03.047 Speeding is a process where people actually try to sort of modify their own 00:13:03.047 --> 00:13:07.367 task in order to make coordination possible. 00:13:07.367 --> 00:13:14.087 And that is something that could come in handy when you don't know your partner's task very well. 00:13:16.887 --> 00:13:22.667 And I think we have discovered this by accident because we were actually looking 00:13:22.667 --> 00:13:24.827 for a different coordination process. 00:13:25.967 --> 00:13:30.967 And we found in several different experiments that in situations where the task 00:13:30.967 --> 00:13:35.587 was somehow ill-posed, people tended to just speed up. 00:13:35.887 --> 00:13:41.847 And this could have been an instance of a very old sort of psychological phenomenon 00:13:41.847 --> 00:13:43.767 that's called social facilitation. 00:13:43.767 --> 00:13:47.987 You just get faster if you're doing stuff together with other people, 00:13:48.167 --> 00:13:52.627 even if you do it not together, but also if you're just in the same room, let's say. 00:13:52.627 --> 00:13:55.987 But then we notice that basically speeding 00:13:55.987 --> 00:13:58.827 up also implies something statistic you know which is 00:13:58.827 --> 00:14:02.307 just a statistic effect because it reduces variability if 00:14:02.307 --> 00:14:05.287 you get faster you go to your limits you know 00:14:05.287 --> 00:14:10.447 and you you can't become faster and that automatically means that your actions 00:14:10.447 --> 00:14:17.347 timing becomes less variable so what you require for coordination is actually 00:14:17.347 --> 00:14:23.287 in for instance in order to be synchronous or to engage in a certain rhythm. 00:14:25.827 --> 00:14:31.007 Basically less variability helps you to be more synchronous, something like that. 00:14:31.267 --> 00:14:35.887 So in some ways you're saying by finding maybe the right speed, 00:14:35.927 --> 00:14:39.867 because it's not that you operate at the maximum speed, you just speed up as 00:14:39.867 --> 00:14:41.387 compared when you act on your own. 00:14:42.827 --> 00:14:48.387 Yes, but actually in our task most of the time that means going to your limits actually. 00:14:48.387 --> 00:14:51.787 Okay like what's a task um uh in our 00:14:51.787 --> 00:14:55.087 in our case it was a simple reaction time task but 00:14:55.087 --> 00:14:57.947 it could also be you know any motor task i'm pretty sure 00:14:57.947 --> 00:15:00.727 but but the point you to make 00:15:00.727 --> 00:15:03.467 is okay by speeding up you become more predictable and this 00:15:03.467 --> 00:15:06.187 would facilitate the joint action i mean it would 00:15:06.187 --> 00:15:12.247 help the other to deal with you yeah it's 00:15:12.247 --> 00:15:15.007 it's not even that i mean you're not trying to make 00:15:15.007 --> 00:15:18.467 yourself predictable for the other you're just speeding up and you 00:15:18.467 --> 00:15:22.087 know that in itself basically um 00:15:22.087 --> 00:15:26.227 reduces your variability and so 00:15:26.227 --> 00:15:31.487 basically it it increases the chances that you will be more synchronous with 00:15:31.487 --> 00:15:36.907 the other person so for instance if you if you uh if you go faster and faster 00:15:36.907 --> 00:15:44.807 and faster um basically you know if you if you have to clap a very slow rhythm together for instance. 00:15:45.147 --> 00:15:48.547 And you need to stay one second apart or something like that. 00:15:48.727 --> 00:15:53.847 It's pretty likely that if you try to do that now with clapping, 00:15:54.147 --> 00:15:58.907 we would produce large asynchronies and our clapping wouldn't fall together. 00:15:59.287 --> 00:16:05.207 If we clapped very fast, we'd have a pretty good chance actually that actually 00:16:05.207 --> 00:16:07.047 these variabilities would be much lower. 00:16:08.047 --> 00:16:16.647 And in the same sense basically, speeding up can can help you to be in time with one another. 00:16:17.627 --> 00:16:24.247 So the speeding up effect is more closely related still to the entrainment we talked about before. 00:16:26.570 --> 00:16:31.590 Or not? Because you're saying by speeding up, you increase the probability to 00:16:31.590 --> 00:16:35.570 synchronize, so that would be in the form of entrainment or not. 00:16:37.490 --> 00:16:42.850 I think we have to make a distinction between synchronicity and entrainment. 00:16:43.010 --> 00:16:47.650 I think entrainment is one process that can produce synchronicity, 00:16:47.690 --> 00:16:51.990 but there are other processes that can produce synchronicity too. 00:16:52.210 --> 00:16:56.370 I think what I'm saying is that speeding can also produce use synchronicity 00:16:56.370 --> 00:16:59.710 all right understand so for your synchronicity is in some sense then, 00:17:00.550 --> 00:17:03.530 synonymous to a joint action in a broad sense like joint 00:17:03.530 --> 00:17:07.730 action by definition must show some synchronicity 00:17:07.730 --> 00:17:10.450 many joint actions need to show that 00:17:10.450 --> 00:17:15.170 i mean some other joint actions would actually require turn taking okay fair 00:17:15.170 --> 00:17:19.950 enough yes okay very good yeah you're right so but for these for this subclass 00:17:19.950 --> 00:17:24.670 of joint actions because you know i mean that's sort of there was also one one 00:17:24.670 --> 00:17:28.750 main message of the talk to say that, in a sense, 00:17:28.850 --> 00:17:36.190 in order to solve different coordination problems that you have in order to perform joint actions, 00:17:36.410 --> 00:17:40.370 you can have different processes for solving these coordination problems. 00:17:40.690 --> 00:17:44.670 And it's not a single one, so to say. And speeding is one that can actually 00:17:44.670 --> 00:17:49.450 help you to be in synchrony with another person if you don't know a lot of other 00:17:49.450 --> 00:17:50.810 stuff about that person. 00:17:50.810 --> 00:17:55.710 And it is a strategy because we were only observing it in the experiments when 00:17:55.710 --> 00:18:00.610 we asked people to be synchronous with one another and not when they sort of 00:18:00.610 --> 00:18:02.210 performed the task independently. 00:18:03.490 --> 00:18:12.010 So in a sense, speeding can be an intentional strategy that can actually lead 00:18:12.010 --> 00:18:14.890 to achieving synchronicity. 00:18:14.890 --> 00:18:19.430 But now tell me, if in the speeding, in this component of speeding, 00:18:19.790 --> 00:18:25.710 it seems to imply that the behavior itself is again oscillatory in some way. 00:18:26.270 --> 00:18:32.590 It has some frequency component and I'm sort of speeding or slowing that frequency element. 00:18:33.030 --> 00:18:37.430 This now helps me to catch up with this other oscillator, which is another human doing something. 00:18:37.630 --> 00:18:42.490 And then once I caught up, I can now set my frequency equal to the other. 00:18:42.750 --> 00:18:49.490 Right. Okay, so maybe speeding is not the best way to name this. 00:18:49.710 --> 00:18:54.170 Okay. Because we don't mean sort of speeding up in a task. 00:18:54.290 --> 00:18:58.070 We mean sort of speeding up compared to individual performance. Mm-hmm. 00:18:58.670 --> 00:19:04.210 So that basically what we had was actually individual reactions to a stimulus. 00:19:04.450 --> 00:19:08.010 So it's not a rhythmic action like, you know, in a rocking chair. 00:19:08.230 --> 00:19:11.110 Right. But it's sort of discrete responses to stimuli. 00:19:11.690 --> 00:19:17.170 Sure. So if you need sort of this, for these discrete responses to stimuli, 00:19:17.710 --> 00:19:20.830 speeding up would be a strategy to be synchronous. 00:19:21.330 --> 00:19:24.050 But then if I understand it well, then it's like. 00:19:25.310 --> 00:19:29.470 If you compare the joint case versus individual case, you see that in processing 00:19:29.470 --> 00:19:33.450 discrete stimuli, like my reaction time to the stimulus, there I'm faster, 00:19:33.610 --> 00:19:35.610 right? So this is the data. 00:19:37.070 --> 00:19:41.390 But then in your interpretation of something like, oh, but by speeding up, 00:19:41.550 --> 00:19:44.430 I make it more likely to synchronize with the other. 00:19:44.490 --> 00:19:48.370 That's something that is supposedly going to happen after you saw the stimulus 00:19:48.370 --> 00:19:51.310 because we only know now we're speeding up to see the stimulus. 00:19:51.650 --> 00:19:55.310 No, I think it's a general strategy, really. I mean, it's sort of a different 00:19:55.310 --> 00:20:00.010 mindset of approaching the task because what we saw in our experiments is that 00:20:00.010 --> 00:20:02.330 people actually didn't speed up during the experiment. 00:20:02.550 --> 00:20:06.790 So there's a constant difference between the individual and joint condition 00:20:06.790 --> 00:20:08.490 right from the start. Okay. 00:20:08.750 --> 00:20:17.870 So that it just means when you are asked to do it synchronously with me, you're going faster. 00:20:18.710 --> 00:20:26.250 And you do that right away, so to say. And that modulation is an order of magnitude, I guess not. 00:20:26.530 --> 00:20:30.690 It is pretty much. So it's a task where people would normally, 00:20:30.890 --> 00:20:36.470 in the individual condition, would normally require about 400 milliseconds to respond. 00:20:36.750 --> 00:20:39.750 The joint conditions, they are 50 milliseconds faster. 00:20:40.110 --> 00:20:46.710 So it's quite substantial. I mean, it's only 50 milliseconds. 00:20:46.710 --> 00:20:50.670 Seconds but uh in experimental psychology in that sort of time window it means 00:20:50.670 --> 00:20:56.810 a lot exactly sure so i mean it's a huge it's a huge difference so um. 00:20:58.069 --> 00:21:03.769 I mean, I think our most convincing data is in analyzing the correlations between 00:21:03.769 --> 00:21:11.329 reaction times, variability, and asynchrony. Okay, because what people need 00:21:11.329 --> 00:21:12.969 to achieve is asynchrony. 00:21:12.989 --> 00:21:17.189 And what you can show is that if you ask people to synchronize intentionally, 00:21:17.729 --> 00:21:25.609 basically, people, you have a big relationship between reaction times and variability. 00:21:25.609 --> 00:21:31.609 And again, between variability and asynchrony, and no relationship between reaction 00:21:31.609 --> 00:21:35.609 time, direct relationship between reaction times and asynchrony. 00:21:36.429 --> 00:21:42.489 Whereas in an unintentional condition, the main relationship is actually a direct 00:21:42.489 --> 00:21:45.689 relation between the reaction times and the asynchrony. 00:21:45.709 --> 00:21:51.789 And variability doesn't play a role. Which really means that the relationship, 00:21:52.169 --> 00:21:57.269 that people are really sort of speeding up in order to reduce variability, 00:21:57.829 --> 00:22:02.489 which in turn actually reduces the asynchrony. 00:22:03.509 --> 00:22:09.409 That at least is our interpretation. Right, exactly. Because now you see there's a causality here. 00:22:09.689 --> 00:22:12.829 Right. And it's only correlations. I have to admit that. 00:22:13.009 --> 00:22:18.429 Okay. Okay, so I want to ask whether you had any way to really now dissect this 00:22:18.429 --> 00:22:22.229 assumed causal structure. Have you made progress on that? 00:22:22.429 --> 00:22:29.669 Well, I think our argument would be that you have to do basically exactly the 00:22:29.669 --> 00:22:36.909 same, at least primary task, in an unintentional condition and in the coordination condition. 00:22:36.909 --> 00:22:43.309 And just the requirement for coordination completely changes the pattern of 00:22:43.309 --> 00:22:45.169 correlations between the three parameters. 00:22:45.909 --> 00:22:57.509 But again, it's only correlations, and I think we have to find manipulations that allow us to add, 00:22:57.889 --> 00:23:01.729 for instance, variability in order to actually 00:23:01.729 --> 00:23:04.729 provide further evidence right i was wondering about 00:23:04.729 --> 00:23:07.649 how this would generalize right because imagine it's not 00:23:07.649 --> 00:23:10.709 let's say an image uh detection task 00:23:10.709 --> 00:23:13.509 or something like that but it is a task where you 00:23:13.509 --> 00:23:17.669 use different modalities or maybe it's even more an active task which you also 00:23:17.669 --> 00:23:23.909 believe or do you have information that the same speeding occurs um i think 00:23:23.909 --> 00:23:31.869 it's a very general strategy so if you um because it It just means that as soon as you don't know, 00:23:32.129 --> 00:23:34.349 when you know you need to be synchronous, 00:23:34.689 --> 00:23:41.269 and if you and another person have roughly the same task, basically when you 00:23:41.269 --> 00:23:43.389 speed up, it's likely to work better. 00:23:45.189 --> 00:23:48.069 But I could also argue, well, maybe it's a form of competition. 00:23:48.209 --> 00:23:51.089 You want to just be better than the other. That's why you speed up. 00:23:52.299 --> 00:23:55.739 Is that an alternative explanation? It is an alternative explanation. 00:23:56.159 --> 00:24:00.819 And it would be, I think, you know, many people would be sort of more interested. 00:24:01.039 --> 00:24:04.819 Also in social facilitation, you know, heightened arousal is the explanation. 00:24:06.119 --> 00:24:11.359 But I think our only point is, what we want to point out is, 00:24:11.439 --> 00:24:13.099 here's this very simple strategy. 00:24:13.419 --> 00:24:17.819 How, you know, changing the performance on your own task could actually help 00:24:17.819 --> 00:24:20.159 you to achieve synchronization with somebody else. 00:24:20.159 --> 00:24:22.939 Where you know most of the time people would think 00:24:22.939 --> 00:24:25.799 well in order to to achieve that you need to decode the 00:24:25.799 --> 00:24:28.919 other's intention or you know simulate the other's actions 00:24:28.919 --> 00:24:31.879 right and we want to propose this you know 00:24:31.879 --> 00:24:35.579 as a computationally or so cheap uh way of actually 00:24:35.579 --> 00:24:38.819 getting um things synchronized uh 00:24:38.819 --> 00:24:42.259 between people so for you this is like a joint action 00:24:42.259 --> 00:24:45.239 reflex or joint action heuristic or 00:24:45.239 --> 00:24:48.019 something like that but completely it's a it's innate in the 00:24:48.019 --> 00:24:51.179 system it will always do this you don't need to learn this no okay 00:24:51.179 --> 00:24:53.939 people just do it right i mean that's what we saw 00:24:53.939 --> 00:24:56.659 in our experiments they didn't have to acquire this they just do 00:24:56.659 --> 00:24:59.719 it did have you looked at how how this appears in development 00:24:59.719 --> 00:25:05.619 no uh but this was i think it would be really interesting if if kids showed 00:25:05.619 --> 00:25:11.959 uh the same tendency right exactly yeah all right so so now we have let's say 00:25:11.959 --> 00:25:17.479 entrainment the most simple form of sort of synchronization now we have speeding where we Indeed, 00:25:17.599 --> 00:25:21.619 I'll start looking at, let's say, behavioral strategies to facilitate synchronization. 00:25:22.359 --> 00:25:25.699 And the next one is now really like a big jump up in, let's say, 00:25:25.779 --> 00:25:29.979 the cognitive ladder, because now we're going to talk about simulation. Right. Right. So- 00:25:30.901 --> 00:25:34.861 So how does simulation help me now in joint action? What am I simulating? 00:25:35.381 --> 00:25:37.321 What you're simulating is the other's task. 00:25:38.261 --> 00:25:45.381 The task or the intentions? Actually, not the intentions. It's aspects of the other's performance. 00:25:46.961 --> 00:25:50.741 And, of course, you need to sort of represent somehow the other's task, 00:25:51.021 --> 00:25:54.781 at least to some detail, and to which detail is actually unknown. 00:25:55.121 --> 00:25:58.281 And that can also vary a lot, but that will be a different talk. 00:25:59.121 --> 00:26:03.561 But you have to represent that the other person has a task and you have to represent 00:26:03.561 --> 00:26:05.421 some details of this task. 00:26:05.561 --> 00:26:10.821 And the idea then is that your own action knowledge allows you to actually predict 00:26:10.821 --> 00:26:16.381 how difficult it will be for the other person to perform this task or how long 00:26:16.381 --> 00:26:19.301 it will take for the other person to perform this task. 00:26:19.581 --> 00:26:24.341 Am I modeling the user, the other, and the other's performance? 00:26:24.541 --> 00:26:28.461 Or am I really modeling the task? If I model the task... I think you model the 00:26:28.461 --> 00:26:30.381 other's performance. Okay, okay. 00:26:30.901 --> 00:26:35.301 Because then the question is, is now my modeling of the other's performance, 00:26:36.041 --> 00:26:41.041 some sort of modulation of my own model, of my own performance, 00:26:41.161 --> 00:26:44.761 or is it something that is really separated from that? 00:26:45.161 --> 00:26:49.401 Right. So actually, I mean, the idea is that you use your own motor system, 00:26:49.461 --> 00:26:51.221 and it sounds perhaps a bit funny, 00:26:51.761 --> 00:26:55.101 that you use your own motor system to plan your own actions, 00:26:55.101 --> 00:26:59.421 and at the same time you use the same motor system to actually also predict 00:26:59.421 --> 00:27:04.421 what the other person will do so the idea is really of. 00:27:05.182 --> 00:27:13.262 In a sense simulating what the other does with your own action knowledge actually biases, 00:27:13.802 --> 00:27:16.622 how you perform your own action so in 00:27:16.622 --> 00:27:19.422 a sense and this would also involve a predictive of the 00:27:19.422 --> 00:27:22.022 prediction of the consequences of the action so in a 00:27:22.022 --> 00:27:24.742 sense it's an idea that there could be something 00:27:24.742 --> 00:27:27.442 like a parallel prediction for your own action and the 00:27:27.442 --> 00:27:31.102 other section so that means if i'm clumsy if i'm 00:27:31.102 --> 00:27:33.942 a clumsy person then i will have a tendency to also model you as 00:27:33.942 --> 00:27:37.502 a clumsy person but we have to perform a task together yes so 00:27:37.502 --> 00:27:40.462 in a sense it would also depend on your experience for 00:27:40.462 --> 00:27:43.942 instance so for instance if if you're a very good 00:27:43.942 --> 00:27:46.842 dancer and you you perform dancing you will 00:27:46.842 --> 00:27:52.462 have more motor activation in your system because you you can sort of simulate 00:27:52.462 --> 00:27:57.682 better what you're observing um than when you're not an experienced dancer because 00:27:57.682 --> 00:28:02.022 you will simulate a dance movement more like a walking movement let's say or 00:28:02.022 --> 00:28:06.662 something that's familiar to you you can still sort of simulate aspects of it, 00:28:06.742 --> 00:28:10.582 but not in a very fine-grained detail. 00:28:11.162 --> 00:28:16.642 So that means you're sort of in this Merleau-Ponty school there of a perception 00:28:16.642 --> 00:28:22.082 that my model of you is grounded in my model of myself. 00:28:23.102 --> 00:28:26.882 Yeah, but not in a phenomenological sense, actually. 00:28:27.322 --> 00:28:30.902 It's more in a functional sense, sense really um because 00:28:30.902 --> 00:28:33.742 um uh i the assumption would 00:28:33.742 --> 00:28:37.102 be that the the simulation itself um actually 00:28:37.102 --> 00:28:40.762 is sort of completely unconscious it's not you know it's it's not a particular 00:28:40.762 --> 00:28:46.422 experience connected to it it's more like um um a parallel prediction of what 00:28:46.422 --> 00:28:51.922 could happen in the outside world so um it's i think it's more closely related 00:28:51.922 --> 00:28:56.202 to you know the uh mirror system sort of theories or 00:28:56.262 --> 00:29:02.702 common coding theories that sort of postulate a close link between perception and action. Mm-hmm. 00:29:04.228 --> 00:29:10.848 And I think it's sort of, you know, you can link both action planning perception to external events. 00:29:11.788 --> 00:29:17.948 And then basically, once you make that move, the motor system can actually contribute 00:29:17.948 --> 00:29:21.188 to action understanding, to action simulation for other people too. 00:29:21.248 --> 00:29:29.248 Okay. But then your simulation model is a bit more like a forward model in some 00:29:29.248 --> 00:29:31.828 sense, right? Yes, that's true. I'm just predicting states of the world. 00:29:32.048 --> 00:29:38.868 And the other is just another aspect of that world who then also has an impact 00:29:38.868 --> 00:29:40.448 on that world. So changing its property. 00:29:40.508 --> 00:29:44.368 So I can just make now forward predictions about what this impact will be. 00:29:44.628 --> 00:29:48.028 That is true. But, you know, in some situations, I mean, one task that we use 00:29:48.028 --> 00:29:53.568 in an EEG study was, you know, I'm handing a bottle to you. That was basically the task. 00:29:54.148 --> 00:29:59.628 And then we were looking at preparation components for motor actions, for motor initiation. 00:30:00.048 --> 00:30:05.708 And the interesting finding there was that the person who was actually sort 00:30:05.708 --> 00:30:12.528 of receiving the bottle was showing a sort of motor peak that you normally see 00:30:12.528 --> 00:30:17.668 for processes of motor simulation at the point where the person who was giving 00:30:17.668 --> 00:30:19.108 initiated their action. 00:30:19.108 --> 00:30:23.908 Action, so much before they actually initiated their own receiving action, 00:30:24.088 --> 00:30:30.128 which was sort of very clear evidence that the motor system was actually making a contribution, 00:30:30.448 --> 00:30:37.748 was sort of simulating the other's actions in addition to one's own action. Right. 00:30:38.508 --> 00:30:44.488 So now, in simulation, it's very operational. 00:30:44.668 --> 00:30:47.988 You define it in very operational terms, right? So you're not including anything 00:30:47.988 --> 00:30:52.048 about making inferences about the goals of the other. 00:30:52.748 --> 00:30:58.988 So you think that is not really a required component to account for joint action? 00:30:59.208 --> 00:31:00.988 Oh, it's absolutely a required component. 00:31:03.608 --> 00:31:08.168 That's sort of the aspect of joint action I didn't talk so much about, 00:31:09.128 --> 00:31:13.468 which is sort of you have to have a goal representation that allows you to define 00:31:13.468 --> 00:31:18.428 different roles in the joint action and also the joint outcome that you want to achieve. 00:31:18.688 --> 00:31:24.728 And the idea is that this sort of goal representation actually drives the simulation 00:31:24.728 --> 00:31:28.308 and reaches into the motor system. 00:31:30.628 --> 00:31:35.088 And so that basically, you know, this sort of top-down modular, 00:31:35.448 --> 00:31:41.008 this sort of high-level planning structure, let's say, actually sort of ties, 00:31:41.108 --> 00:31:43.108 gets tied into the motor system. 00:31:43.108 --> 00:31:48.528 Them and then does the appropriate simulation also takes care of the integration 00:31:48.528 --> 00:31:50.808 of the information that comes out of the motor system. 00:31:52.687 --> 00:31:58.127 Okay. But then the specific task that you described here was this musical task, 00:31:58.367 --> 00:32:00.067 right? We have two people playing on a piano. 00:32:00.427 --> 00:32:03.527 Right. It was under monitoring, though. Oh, sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. 00:32:03.667 --> 00:32:07.887 Yeah. This is one step further. But it was interesting to see that also in that 00:32:07.887 --> 00:32:13.147 task, actually, it had an impact on, let's say, with respect to predictions 00:32:13.147 --> 00:32:15.547 pertaining to the other or the self. 00:32:16.227 --> 00:32:19.967 Right. But let's discuss that experiment when we hit the monitoring. 00:32:20.167 --> 00:32:21.367 Maybe I'm moving too fast here. 00:32:22.687 --> 00:32:26.907 But now for the simulation, to what extent? 00:32:27.087 --> 00:32:32.387 So you could imagine that I have a generic simulation system in my brain, 00:32:32.407 --> 00:32:36.567 like a mirror mechanism and with all sorts of bells and whistles attached to it. 00:32:38.267 --> 00:32:43.627 Would a generic modeling system or simulation system be sufficient to support 00:32:43.627 --> 00:32:47.647 joint action or should it have some special ingredients that make joint action 00:32:47.647 --> 00:32:51.607 then standing out from just predicting other aspects of the world? 00:32:52.687 --> 00:32:57.967 I think it would capture different regularities. So I don't think that it would 00:32:57.967 --> 00:33:07.627 necessarily need to be completely different in that it would also, 00:33:07.707 --> 00:33:09.847 of course, capture regularities. 00:33:09.847 --> 00:33:12.867 But the regularity that it captures would be very different. 00:33:13.447 --> 00:33:19.287 And especially in those cases where people perform highly coordinated actions. 00:33:20.047 --> 00:33:23.407 So for instance you know if you 00:33:23.407 --> 00:33:26.467 take two dancers uh by coordinated tango dances 00:33:26.467 --> 00:33:29.547 and so on um so that in 00:33:29.547 --> 00:33:35.527 a sense uh you know the specifics of the other's body and movements would become 00:33:35.527 --> 00:33:41.387 part of your own prediction models so that and so you know one way of thinking 00:33:41.387 --> 00:33:46.867 about this is would be saying it's not different because it also captures regularities 00:33:46.867 --> 00:33:49.127 just like any other forward model Yeah. 00:33:50.401 --> 00:33:57.301 The other way of thinking about it would be that here we have a system that 00:33:57.301 --> 00:34:01.821 captures a different type of regularity that doesn't only depend on my body, 00:34:02.001 --> 00:34:03.861 but also on another body. 00:34:03.861 --> 00:34:10.741 And could that perhaps capture regularities that are then interesting to use 00:34:10.741 --> 00:34:16.081 for other functions in the system so that being in close interactions with others 00:34:16.081 --> 00:34:18.341 could perhaps even have, let's say, 00:34:18.461 --> 00:34:23.241 something like implications for your bimanual coordination, something like that. 00:34:23.241 --> 00:34:33.721 And the other way around would be that perhaps in order for joint action, 00:34:33.901 --> 00:34:37.061 you could, and that would be the similarity again, 00:34:37.601 --> 00:34:45.901 could I use by manual models where I have to have some similar coordination 00:34:45.901 --> 00:34:48.141 problems as when coordinating with other people? 00:34:48.141 --> 00:34:51.461 So if you're shaking hands, I can do that with my two hands too. 00:34:52.601 --> 00:35:01.121 Can I use the bimanual models as a proxy to bootstrap my joint action model from? Things like that. 00:35:01.381 --> 00:35:06.521 Okay. But you do see a continuity there. There's not… Yeah. Okay. 00:35:07.861 --> 00:35:12.381 It's not fundamentally different, but I could say, imagine, for instance, 00:35:12.501 --> 00:35:16.581 if you wanted to talk about modules or separation of function for a bit. 00:35:18.141 --> 00:35:24.301 Because of the different type of regularity that these forward models capture, 00:35:24.641 --> 00:35:27.501 because there's perhaps more dynamics or more complex dynamics, 00:35:27.841 --> 00:35:33.581 or because the biological movement has invariant characteristics somehow, 00:35:33.941 --> 00:35:39.641 it could still be a specified way of modeling. 00:35:39.801 --> 00:35:44.941 But the capturing of regularities would be the same. Right, exactly. 00:35:45.421 --> 00:35:49.521 But then how quickly in development do you see this? 00:35:50.554 --> 00:35:54.074 This ability to capture this and to make predictions. Right. 00:35:54.294 --> 00:35:58.694 I don't think we know anything about this actually empirically, 00:35:58.834 --> 00:36:04.634 but my hunch would be that in a sense these sort of low-level components are 00:36:04.634 --> 00:36:08.134 in place before the sort of planning structures. 00:36:08.714 --> 00:36:16.314 So that you have sort of forward models which are able to actually deal with, 00:36:16.394 --> 00:36:19.574 let's say, combined human motion in place. 00:36:21.694 --> 00:36:30.174 Before children start to perform intentional joint actions, where they sort 00:36:30.174 --> 00:36:32.054 of take the initiative in the joint action. 00:36:32.434 --> 00:36:35.934 Because, of course, in the broad definition of joint action. 00:36:36.074 --> 00:36:40.874 Infants are involved in it right from the first day of birth because they're 00:36:40.874 --> 00:36:42.414 being carried around and so on. 00:36:42.474 --> 00:36:45.974 They make posture adjustments adjustments that 00:36:45.974 --> 00:36:49.454 make it easy for their parents to to carry them 00:36:49.454 --> 00:36:52.374 around and so on so i would expect that you 00:36:52.374 --> 00:36:55.574 know a lot of this sort of motor stuff is in place and 00:36:55.574 --> 00:36:58.534 that sort of the developmental boundary they 00:36:58.534 --> 00:37:02.014 have to cross really is more in the development of um 00:37:02.014 --> 00:37:05.434 of uh task representations that allows 00:37:05.434 --> 00:37:08.494 them to keep you know self and other together assign different 00:37:08.494 --> 00:37:12.374 roles to different actors things like that right okay so 00:37:12.374 --> 00:37:17.014 now now I can simulate and so 00:37:17.014 --> 00:37:19.694 that means I have more power in let's say 00:37:19.694 --> 00:37:24.494 predicting and adjusting but now 00:37:24.494 --> 00:37:27.534 now I must be able to let's say then monitor the quality of 00:37:27.534 --> 00:37:30.834 my performance and the quality of the performance of the other okay 00:37:30.834 --> 00:37:34.634 so so how does 00:37:34.634 --> 00:37:37.994 this exactly work right i mean i 00:37:37.994 --> 00:37:40.774 think we know that um people are very good at 00:37:40.774 --> 00:37:43.694 monitoring the outcomes of their own actions and there's 00:37:43.694 --> 00:37:47.274 also some previous research that shows that surprisingly uh when 00:37:47.274 --> 00:37:51.074 we observe others performing actions you know we also monitor whether they make 00:37:51.074 --> 00:37:56.574 an arrow or not and that uh the brain seems to do pretty much the same thing 00:37:56.574 --> 00:38:03.894 in both cases so that you can can actually observe the same ERP-EG patterns. 00:38:04.594 --> 00:38:08.574 ERP components in both cases. 00:38:08.854 --> 00:38:11.774 Now, one question is whether. 00:38:12.772 --> 00:38:17.752 In monitoring, you know, you have a separate monitoring mechanism for the joint 00:38:17.752 --> 00:38:20.112 outcome of the actions, because in a piano duet, 00:38:20.352 --> 00:38:28.572 basically what counts is the coordinated actions of both of us and not the individual playing. 00:38:28.672 --> 00:38:33.512 So, you know, we can do a perfect performance of our part, of our individual 00:38:33.512 --> 00:38:36.232 parts, and it can sound very terrible. 00:38:36.672 --> 00:38:44.212 Right, exactly. And so the question is, you know, how do we represent this destroyed 00:38:44.212 --> 00:38:46.692 outcome and are we able to monitor it? 00:38:47.472 --> 00:38:50.452 So in this experiment, there's two piano players. 00:38:50.792 --> 00:38:55.692 They play a fixed score, two notes at a fixed rhythmicity. 00:38:56.572 --> 00:39:01.912 And then you started to sort of perturb the sound that was produced. Right. 00:39:02.052 --> 00:39:07.992 So basically what we do is they have, these are expert pianists and they know 00:39:07.992 --> 00:39:13.792 how to play pieces very well and basically plant errors in their performances while they're doing it. 00:39:13.912 --> 00:39:16.892 So they play the right note, but they hear the wrong tone. 00:39:16.892 --> 00:39:23.072 And uh we could so we were measuring eg from from two people at the same time 00:39:23.072 --> 00:39:28.012 while they were playing a duet and uh we planted mistakes for the person themselves 00:39:28.012 --> 00:39:31.012 for the other person and then we 00:39:31.392 --> 00:39:37.592 basically uh planted two types of mistakes one mistake would basically affect 00:39:37.592 --> 00:39:44.032 the joint performance a lot and the other mistake would affect it less and so 00:39:44.032 --> 00:39:46.952 it would sort of either change or not change, 00:39:46.992 --> 00:39:49.092 jointly produce harmonies. 00:39:50.052 --> 00:39:56.332 And what we found is that early sort of monitoring components and error components 00:39:56.332 --> 00:40:02.492 reacted in exactly the same way to self errors, other errors, 00:40:02.772 --> 00:40:08.032 and it also didn't make a difference of whether to which extent a joint result was affected. 00:40:08.032 --> 00:40:17.012 Whereas later components that are interpreted as signals of conscious error processing. 00:40:18.246 --> 00:40:21.726 Were actually scaled with self-relevance. 00:40:21.986 --> 00:40:28.466 So these components, so there was sort of more of an error signal when the person 00:40:28.466 --> 00:40:31.706 made a mistake themselves than when the other person made the mistake. 00:40:32.806 --> 00:40:37.126 But the second factor, and that's more interesting, is that these signals were 00:40:37.126 --> 00:40:41.386 larger for self and other when the joint outcome was more affected. 00:40:41.806 --> 00:40:48.666 So which really indicates that, you know, people have to do this monitoring of the joint outcome. 00:40:49.006 --> 00:40:51.266 But how was the modulation factor there? 00:40:52.066 --> 00:40:56.406 Because in that sense, now you had really parametric control over the error 00:40:56.406 --> 00:40:59.426 that you could induce, or not? 00:40:59.626 --> 00:41:07.666 No, I mean, it's not a parametric simulation because it's not on a sort of continuous pitch dimension, 00:41:08.166 --> 00:41:15.706 because the music harmonies sort of constrain a lot what you can do there, so to say. 00:41:15.906 --> 00:41:25.046 So it's not really true that we could have had parametric violation. 00:41:25.646 --> 00:41:30.806 So we could only sort of come up with, and that was tough enough actually, 00:41:30.926 --> 00:41:37.566 experimental manipulations where we had, we actually changed the joint harmony or not. 00:41:38.186 --> 00:41:41.946 Okay. So, so either there was an error or there was no error. This is, this is. 00:41:43.920 --> 00:41:51.580 I mean, there wasn't, okay, so in all four cases, we planted errors. 00:41:52.660 --> 00:41:55.660 But these errors could be sort 00:41:55.660 --> 00:41:59.760 of individual in the sense that they didn't affect the overall harmony. 00:41:59.940 --> 00:42:02.840 They still fit into the jointly produced harmony. 00:42:03.180 --> 00:42:07.740 So it was just, you know, we replaced one tone that belongs to a particular 00:42:07.740 --> 00:42:12.340 chord, let's say, with another tone that also could belong to that chord. 00:42:12.340 --> 00:42:14.160 So the chord remains unchanged. 00:42:14.700 --> 00:42:23.900 Whereas in the other case, we actually change the pitch so that the chord actually flips. 00:42:24.800 --> 00:42:28.020 And that changes the joint result more. Right. 00:42:28.100 --> 00:42:34.380 But now, if you look at this P300 response, so these late components for error monitoring, 00:42:34.380 --> 00:42:37.680 monitoring um how does it what does 00:42:37.680 --> 00:42:40.800 it look like if we compare let's say own errors 00:42:40.800 --> 00:42:45.360 versus the errors of the other right so 00:42:45.360 --> 00:42:52.240 for the for the for the later component uh um basically uh it um it matters 00:42:52.240 --> 00:42:56.320 more you know it's the component is much higher when you make a mistake yourself 00:42:56.320 --> 00:43:02.700 okay but But there's still an error signal when the other person makes the mistake, 00:43:02.960 --> 00:43:06.760 but only when it has consequences for the joint result. 00:43:09.040 --> 00:43:12.300 In other words, sorry, sorry to interrupt, but just to clarify, 00:43:12.600 --> 00:43:18.500 it has no impact on the joint outcome if the harmony is not affected, 00:43:18.720 --> 00:43:19.340 is that what you're saying? 00:43:22.963 --> 00:43:26.463 Okay so the error signal so if 00:43:26.463 --> 00:43:29.343 i'm if if uh if you if i 00:43:29.343 --> 00:43:32.563 planted an error in your playing you you 00:43:32.563 --> 00:43:35.903 would always find the error component yeah exactly and 00:43:35.903 --> 00:43:39.543 if i'm your partner in the in the piano duet um 00:43:39.543 --> 00:43:42.683 we would only find uh an 00:43:42.683 --> 00:43:46.103 error component if my arrow 00:43:46.103 --> 00:43:49.003 affects our harmony but not if 00:43:49.003 --> 00:43:52.743 it doesn't affect our harmony okay all right and your 00:43:52.743 --> 00:43:55.583 arrow component for your own error is is 00:43:55.583 --> 00:43:59.103 also higher when the individual when 00:43:59.103 --> 00:44:02.543 the sorry when the joint harmony is affected so even 00:44:02.543 --> 00:44:05.583 for your own mistake you know the job uh it's 00:44:05.583 --> 00:44:08.783 it's sort of worse it's there's a bigger error signal 00:44:08.783 --> 00:44:11.883 when it affects the joint reside more so 00:44:11.883 --> 00:44:17.563 the error you know that uh in this component so to say the error there's less 00:44:17.563 --> 00:44:22.323 of a of an error signal when you make an individual mistake that doesn't affect 00:44:22.323 --> 00:44:29.403 our joint harmony so that means um errors detected in my own play yeah are. 00:44:30.243 --> 00:44:33.403 Sort of lead to more vigorous responses yes 00:44:33.403 --> 00:44:36.183 than those in the play of others right of 00:44:36.183 --> 00:44:38.983 the other and um how is this 00:44:38.983 --> 00:44:41.703 expressed really in the at the erp level is it like really 00:44:41.703 --> 00:44:44.823 an amplitude difference or is it so okay so it's 00:44:44.823 --> 00:44:47.683 a it's a difference in the p300 and the 00:44:47.683 --> 00:44:50.603 p p300 is really scaled in our four 00:44:50.603 --> 00:44:53.583 conditions so it's highest if if it's 00:44:53.583 --> 00:44:58.603 your own error and it affects the joint actions it's second highest and significantly 00:44:58.603 --> 00:45:04.483 different if it's your own error and if it uh if it doesn't affect the joint 00:45:04.483 --> 00:45:11.203 outcome it's third highest if it's my error the other's error and it affects the joint outcome, 00:45:11.463 --> 00:45:17.823 and there's no error component whatsoever if I make the error and it doesn't 00:45:17.823 --> 00:45:19.083 affect the joint outcome. Okay. 00:45:19.443 --> 00:45:27.083 But then in case of monitoring, so here we see that monitoring affects both 00:45:27.083 --> 00:45:29.383 the joint action and the own action. 00:45:29.983 --> 00:45:35.103 But now, isn't that a bit in a contradiction with the idea of the simulation 00:45:35.103 --> 00:45:38.503 where you would say, They say, well, the simulation runs on a more generic infrastructure. 00:45:39.123 --> 00:45:45.443 So then you would expect that self and other monitoring would lead to roughly similar responses. 00:45:46.583 --> 00:45:50.743 I would guess, okay? I mean, you know better than me. But isn't it surprising 00:45:50.743 --> 00:45:53.623 to see that there's such a big difference between these two? Yeah. 00:45:55.210 --> 00:45:58.250 Yeah, I think it depends a lot on the domain again, really. 00:45:59.010 --> 00:46:04.010 And I think for the type of continuous action that's required for piano playing, 00:46:04.210 --> 00:46:06.950 where you also have sort of, you know, normatively, actually, 00:46:07.010 --> 00:46:10.450 you know, in the notation, to play two different pieces, 00:46:15.510 --> 00:46:18.370 I'm not exactly sure how much simulation could do. 00:46:18.870 --> 00:46:23.150 But I also have to say, it has to do something, 00:46:23.150 --> 00:46:26.090 thing because we actually know that you know piano players who 00:46:26.090 --> 00:46:28.970 actually hear piano playing do have a lot 00:46:28.970 --> 00:46:32.270 of the motor activations so um 00:46:32.270 --> 00:46:35.270 perhaps it you know depends a 00:46:35.270 --> 00:46:38.250 little bit on which aspect so that you know in the piano playing when 00:46:38.250 --> 00:46:41.070 it when it comes to pitches and harmony you actually 00:46:41.070 --> 00:46:44.930 have to keep it separate for safe and other and you know the joint harmony has 00:46:44.930 --> 00:46:50.270 to govern stuff but if you looked at the expressive dynamics perhaps you know 00:46:50.270 --> 00:46:58.590 perhaps you would still apply aspects of your own actions to these expressive timing aspects. 00:47:01.510 --> 00:47:05.090 There's no reason to believe that only one or the other process can be active 00:47:05.090 --> 00:47:08.910 at a time in a joint action. Right. 00:47:10.870 --> 00:47:23.130 So now we have a monitoring system. And then our other element is then signaling. 00:47:25.590 --> 00:47:28.610 So how does signaling now play a role in this? 00:47:28.710 --> 00:47:34.650 Because so I can simulate, I can monitor, I can use this to sort of synchronize my actions. 00:47:34.650 --> 00:47:37.510 So why do 00:47:37.510 --> 00:47:40.630 i need signaling now to keep on going right i 00:47:40.630 --> 00:47:43.510 mean i think that's i think uh 00:47:43.510 --> 00:47:46.870 you know the uh the the simulating business 00:47:46.870 --> 00:47:52.210 uh uh and perhaps also the monitoring business if you don't have a lot of feedback 00:47:52.210 --> 00:47:57.050 about one another can be difficult so for instance the simulation mechanism 00:47:57.050 --> 00:48:02.430 i talked about is uh you can actually you actually have yourself to use as a 00:48:02.430 --> 00:48:04.710 proxy for or the other person and go from there. 00:48:04.930 --> 00:48:07.350 And sometimes that might not be the best thing to do. 00:48:07.670 --> 00:48:11.870 Or perhaps you don't have the skill that you would need to be simulating if 00:48:11.870 --> 00:48:15.110 you want to perform a particular joint action with another person. 00:48:16.510 --> 00:48:22.910 So that signaling is another way of actually achieving coordination. 00:48:24.850 --> 00:48:29.410 For instance, when you don't share a skill, or it might just be the more effective 00:48:29.410 --> 00:48:31.750 method in a particular situation. 00:48:31.750 --> 00:48:42.350 So, for instance, when you can give each other signals, when you can sort of, how should I say, 00:48:42.550 --> 00:48:50.650 when a discrete way of sort of affecting the action planning is actually more important than... 00:48:52.869 --> 00:48:56.989 So let me give you an example. I think that would make it better to understand. 00:48:57.069 --> 00:49:02.229 So if you're carrying a box together, I could probably simulate your behavior, 00:49:02.309 --> 00:49:07.069 but you know, we have different perspectives, you walk in a different way than me, and so on. 00:49:07.069 --> 00:49:11.089 So if I'm sort of shoving the box in a particular direction. 00:49:11.449 --> 00:49:18.249 This communicative signal might actually be much more effective in giving a, let's say, 00:49:18.309 --> 00:49:27.629 unambiguous coordination signal than all of the simulations and the monitoring that I'm doing. 00:49:27.629 --> 00:49:37.149 So that this is sort of our attempt to now link up to a more sort of symbolic 00:49:37.149 --> 00:49:44.569 way of achieving coordination but also retaining the link to the motor system 00:49:44.569 --> 00:49:46.229 because in joint action, 00:49:46.449 --> 00:49:52.249 you say when we carry the box, we need to coordinate our action in space and 00:49:52.249 --> 00:49:56.629 time and we want to provide this signaling 00:49:56.829 --> 00:50:01.349 as a let's say um interface perhaps 00:50:01.349 --> 00:50:04.269 uh for you know what would could also be 00:50:04.269 --> 00:50:07.429 a language input you know you could also bias things in 00:50:07.429 --> 00:50:13.249 a language way but people actually um often also do it in a more continuous 00:50:13.249 --> 00:50:16.809 manner with these little sort of shoving signals because you know sometimes 00:50:16.809 --> 00:50:20.989 it's hard to talk about exactly the actions that you need to do and you know 00:50:20.989 --> 00:50:24.909 a haptic push or sort of a proprioceptive signal for the other person might 00:50:24.909 --> 00:50:26.909 be more effective than talking a lot. 00:50:27.509 --> 00:50:31.449 Right, exactly. But now the task you looked at was this pendulum task. 00:50:31.629 --> 00:50:34.849 Actually, it's a box, there's a pendulum, then you have to pull a string left 00:50:34.849 --> 00:50:38.129 or right which you can sort of move the pendulum up and down, 00:50:38.229 --> 00:50:41.789 and then the instruction is to keep the pendulum within a certain range, 00:50:42.009 --> 00:50:46.489 and what you looked at was, you know, when a single person performs this task, 00:50:46.569 --> 00:50:47.249 pulling the two strings, 00:50:47.949 --> 00:50:51.789 or a dyad, so two people will perform this test, each pulling one string. Yes. 00:50:52.149 --> 00:50:56.549 So what's the difference between these two conditions? What do you observe? 00:50:57.009 --> 00:51:00.369 Well, I mean, the interesting difference between these conditions is that people 00:51:00.369 --> 00:51:02.269 do it in a completely different way. 00:51:03.222 --> 00:51:08.142 So you can actually, what individuals do when they're confronted with balancing 00:51:08.142 --> 00:51:14.422 this pendulum is that they apply forces in turn to the right and left side to keep it stable, 00:51:14.662 --> 00:51:21.782 which means that the forces don't overlap very often on both sides, 00:51:22.022 --> 00:51:23.442 which sort of saves them energy. 00:51:23.882 --> 00:51:30.662 And it also means that the one hand doesn't get a lot of proprioceptive signals 00:51:30.662 --> 00:51:32.702 about what the other hand is doing. Okay. 00:51:33.222 --> 00:51:37.762 In a sense, if you perform this individually, you don't need these signals, 00:51:37.942 --> 00:51:42.242 because you know what your other hand is doing, you know, within the system. 00:51:42.842 --> 00:51:47.102 Whereas in the case where we are doing this together, and, you know, 00:51:47.122 --> 00:51:51.362 we have to really control this pendulum movement in real time, 00:51:51.642 --> 00:51:58.802 I don't know exactly, you know, how your action will unfold in real time. 00:51:58.802 --> 00:52:04.862 So it's actually a good idea to pull at the same time so that we have a lot 00:52:04.862 --> 00:52:08.862 of force overlap because then we can feel each other on both sides. 00:52:09.042 --> 00:52:10.662 And that is how people achieve coordination. 00:52:11.202 --> 00:52:16.822 And we can observe this in two different strategies to move the pendulum because 00:52:16.822 --> 00:52:22.362 people sort of in the joint action condition pull at the same time and then 00:52:22.362 --> 00:52:26.782 they lose at the same time and they start pulling at the same time again and so on. 00:52:26.782 --> 00:52:30.582 Yeah, but as was pointed out by 00:52:30.582 --> 00:52:35.402 Andreas Engel in your talk, people have different forms of feedback here. 00:52:35.522 --> 00:52:38.782 It's not only the proprioceptive feedback or the force they might feel on the 00:52:38.782 --> 00:52:43.642 string like the haptic feedback, but they also see what the other is doing. 00:52:48.450 --> 00:52:52.650 So how would that translate in the specific synchronization effect that you observe? 00:52:52.810 --> 00:52:55.890 It seems very odd, right? Because what you observe is that the diator, 00:52:55.910 --> 00:52:59.810 two people basically start to pull simultaneously, which your device allows, 00:53:00.110 --> 00:53:05.990 while the single user is sort of pushing or pulling alternately left or right. Right, yes. 00:53:06.230 --> 00:53:10.570 And in both conditions, does the pendulum end up swinging at the same frequency? 00:53:11.070 --> 00:53:17.450 Well, we instructed them to achieve a certain frequency and a certain amplitude. 00:53:17.450 --> 00:53:25.490 So, and we observed the same difference across, you know, all sorts of different task conditions. 00:53:25.750 --> 00:53:30.170 So, you know, whether you had to move the pendulum in the frequent, 00:53:30.370 --> 00:53:33.590 let's say three times per second from one side to the other, 00:53:33.750 --> 00:53:37.290 or let's say two times, didn't matter. 00:53:37.290 --> 00:53:43.790 And also not how far you had to move it, whether you had to let it fall down 00:53:43.790 --> 00:53:51.130 almost completely or whether you had to turn it sort of only in a small amplitude. 00:53:51.570 --> 00:53:58.050 So across all conditions that we observed, it was pretty much all that the device 00:53:58.050 --> 00:54:00.470 allowed, we actually observed the same difference. 00:54:00.950 --> 00:54:05.610 And your point about vision, of course, vision was involved all of the time. 00:54:06.499 --> 00:54:11.259 But you had equal visual information in the visual case and in the joint case. 00:54:11.779 --> 00:54:17.979 So that in both cases, in a sense, you need visual control of the pendulum in 00:54:17.979 --> 00:54:19.519 order to do the task at all. 00:54:19.779 --> 00:54:22.659 But I think the signaling went through the haptic channel. 00:54:22.979 --> 00:54:28.999 Because it would have been hard to observe, to create a false overlap in vision. 00:54:28.999 --> 00:54:33.139 I think that's also really an interesting aspect of proprioception, 00:54:33.399 --> 00:54:37.159 because it's sort of less this in a sense. 00:54:38.839 --> 00:54:48.879 Perhaps it has different advantages compared to the visual system as an information channel. 00:54:49.839 --> 00:54:52.959 Well, but in some sense it was also biased by the task. I mean, 00:54:52.999 --> 00:54:54.999 people couldn't do anything else than just pull the string. 00:54:55.259 --> 00:54:58.099 Yes, absolutely. But that's what we have to do as experimental psychologists. 00:54:58.099 --> 00:54:59.339 Of course. No, this is clear. 00:54:59.479 --> 00:55:04.459 But now, the alternative could be that, let's say, people just prefer to move 00:55:04.459 --> 00:55:05.919 with a certain movement frequency. 00:55:06.299 --> 00:55:13.759 Yes. Right. So, that means the individual user alternating effectively has the 00:55:13.759 --> 00:55:19.099 same, let's say, effort movement frequency as the dyad that's sort of pulling simultaneously. 00:55:20.239 --> 00:55:25.779 Right. So, with one swing of the pendulum, you still move an equal amount of 00:55:25.779 --> 00:55:26.879 pull, an equal amount of times. 00:55:27.139 --> 00:55:30.399 Right. Can you exclude that, that sort of movement frequency? 00:55:30.579 --> 00:55:35.439 We can exclude that with the tempo manipulation that we did. 00:55:35.659 --> 00:55:43.679 Because in a sense we were going from, I think it was like one turn per second, 00:55:43.959 --> 00:55:47.239 or actually two turns per second, to up to five turns per second. 00:55:47.819 --> 00:55:55.219 And that is a wide range of tempo, basically, and we observe the same differences 00:55:55.219 --> 00:55:57.319 in all of these conditions, 00:55:57.519 --> 00:56:01.779 whether you were going first, you know, whether individuals and groups were 00:56:01.779 --> 00:56:04.179 going fast or small, the difference was always there. 00:56:04.789 --> 00:56:08.649 But now the other thing about signaling is that in some sense you could argue 00:56:08.649 --> 00:56:13.949 this haptic feedback is more like an implicit signal because if I'm part of the diet, 00:56:14.069 --> 00:56:18.649 I'm not really sort of deciding to, okay, let's inform the other about what 00:56:18.649 --> 00:56:21.249 I'm doing. You get it for free because I'm pulling the string. 00:56:22.589 --> 00:56:26.109 I think that's a really interesting aspect of it. 00:56:26.189 --> 00:56:30.049 And I'm not sure whether I would actually want to talk a full-blown communication here. 00:56:30.049 --> 00:56:35.409 But I find it even more interesting than if it was full-blown communication, 00:56:35.909 --> 00:56:39.769 because here seems to be a case where perhaps you have something in between 00:56:39.769 --> 00:56:45.769 intending to communicate, and actually something that the task requires. 00:56:45.769 --> 00:56:52.949 And my hunch is that if you talk about evolution development of these things, 00:56:53.089 --> 00:56:55.529 this could be sort of an interesting in-between case. 00:56:55.789 --> 00:57:00.949 And I think in general, haptic coupling in these sort of practical joint actions 00:57:00.949 --> 00:57:06.589 is one way of trying to bootstrap communication, intentional communication, 00:57:06.589 --> 00:57:08.289 from something simpler. 00:57:08.469 --> 00:57:12.429 Right. It's more like implicit communication in this case, yeah? Yeah. Okay. 00:57:12.949 --> 00:57:18.969 That's very good. Good. Okay, so now we have this list going from entrainment to signaling. 00:57:19.789 --> 00:57:22.469 So how many steps are still missing in the list? 00:57:23.569 --> 00:57:27.509 I don't know. I mean, I think we will find out in the future. 00:57:27.589 --> 00:57:29.889 I'm pretty sure that there are still steps missing. 00:57:30.549 --> 00:57:36.929 And I think it will also be interesting to see how the different processes can work together there. 00:57:37.209 --> 00:57:41.269 And then also, you know, which kind of task representations and separations 00:57:41.269 --> 00:57:46.309 between task representations. you need and how specifically your representations 00:57:46.309 --> 00:57:51.489 of the other staffs need to be for these different processes to be useful. 00:57:51.829 --> 00:57:55.929 So for entrainment, for instance, you don't need any representation of the other 00:57:55.929 --> 00:57:59.129 person, whereas for simulation you absolutely need it. 00:58:00.441 --> 00:58:05.161 So then, if I now want to build a robot that can pull the string of the pendulum 00:58:05.161 --> 00:58:08.301 together with you, where would I start? 00:58:08.361 --> 00:58:11.081 Would I really immediately have to include all of these five? 00:58:11.561 --> 00:58:14.661 Or would you have one or two preferred elements where you say, 00:58:14.701 --> 00:58:18.221 no, it should really start here, it's really bootstrapped from these two or three? 00:58:18.221 --> 00:58:21.281 I think i you should implement 00:58:21.281 --> 00:58:24.121 all of them okay it's sort 00:58:24.121 --> 00:58:27.541 of a and i think you know some of i mean it's a cookbook um 00:58:27.541 --> 00:58:33.341 i i really i mean at least that was the idea sort of and i think in terms of 00:58:33.341 --> 00:58:38.101 of uh implementing them uh there's huge differences in how difficult it would 00:58:38.101 --> 00:58:43.341 be because i think the the entrainment one and the speeding for instance could 00:58:43.341 --> 00:58:46.521 be very easy um there's uh you You know, 00:58:46.561 --> 00:58:51.401 everything that has to do with simulation will probably be very costly. 00:58:51.721 --> 00:58:58.381 And I'm not exactly sure about the signaling because it would require something 00:58:58.381 --> 00:59:06.361 like a very close crosstalk between modules that do perception action links 00:59:06.361 --> 00:59:10.581 and communication modules or task representation modules. 00:59:11.081 --> 00:59:17.481 And I think, to my knowledge, they are mostly kept separate in current architectures in robotics. 00:59:18.501 --> 00:59:21.901 But that's also sort of the challenge we want to pose in robotics, 00:59:21.961 --> 00:59:26.121 to think about the closer links between the different… But if I would go to 00:59:26.121 --> 00:59:28.281 the other extreme, and I would look at other kinds of, let's say, 00:59:28.321 --> 00:59:30.361 social animals, if I go to ants, for instance. 00:59:31.201 --> 00:59:33.941 Would you qualify ants having joint actions? 00:59:35.172 --> 00:59:38.092 It depends on your definition of joint action, again. 00:59:38.292 --> 00:59:45.072 And I think, I mean, perhaps with our current definition, they would even count. 00:59:45.332 --> 00:59:51.332 You know, in our current definition, it all depends on what the social interaction is, really. 00:59:52.572 --> 00:59:56.032 And they can do coordination space and time. So I would think that, 00:59:56.052 --> 01:00:00.692 you know, certainly training would exist on a level between ends. 01:00:02.192 --> 01:00:06.172 And then I think what they do, and we haven't explored that at all, 01:00:06.192 --> 01:00:10.012 is also use the environment a lot to actually achieve coordination. 01:00:10.652 --> 01:00:19.552 So yes, I think I wouldn't be completely opposed to call some of what ends through joint actions, 01:00:19.692 --> 01:00:27.412 but I would also try to be clear about exactly what coordination mechanisms 01:00:27.412 --> 01:00:30.432 that involves and what it doesn't involve. 01:00:30.732 --> 01:00:34.432 And they would certainly not have very elaborate task representation 01:00:34.432 --> 01:00:37.672 right but you would see a continuum there 01:00:37.672 --> 01:00:40.872 in some sense absolutely okay absolutely so I wouldn't 01:00:40.872 --> 01:00:44.192 I mean that's sort of our general research strategy 01:00:44.192 --> 01:00:47.192 not to make any sort of top you know tough 01:00:47.192 --> 01:00:50.252 delineation on the way and just 01:00:50.252 --> 01:00:53.032 see you know whether that can improve our 01:00:53.032 --> 01:00:59.112 understanding okay very good so then to finish up two questions so you are studying 01:00:59.112 --> 01:01:03.612 this whole domain of let's say social interaction or joint action intensely 01:01:03.612 --> 01:01:10.492 for many years so in our in our study of this phenomena what would be gunter's law gunter's law yeah, 01:01:12.012 --> 01:01:14.012 oh that's that's a tricky one. 01:01:18.152 --> 01:01:18.932 Gunter's law, 01:01:23.072 --> 01:01:32.012 um would be not to postulate too much internal representations and joint intentionality, 01:01:33.792 --> 01:01:40.632 for social interaction and to consider what the sensory motor system can actually 01:01:40.632 --> 01:01:42.812 do for social cognition quite in general. 01:01:43.052 --> 01:01:46.972 Okay. And then last question. So five years from now, I'm going to visit you 01:01:46.972 --> 01:01:53.492 there in Budapest and remind you of the hypothesis you're going to generate for me now, 01:01:54.832 --> 01:02:00.592 which is, so what's the hypothesis or the prediction that you're that you're 01:02:00.592 --> 01:02:04.412 most committed to today that you would like to remind you of five years from 01:02:04.412 --> 01:02:09.012 now to see if it really came came true or not a prediction yeah, 01:02:10.772 --> 01:02:19.412 about joint action about joint action a specific prediction on on the research you do. 01:02:21.399 --> 01:02:28.119 Okay, maybe I should rephrase that as a hope, but I will predict that we will 01:02:28.119 --> 01:02:32.159 have increasing impact on sciences that are interested in culture, 01:02:32.439 --> 01:02:40.659 and at least we will try to make some links that allow anthropologists to understand 01:02:40.659 --> 01:02:50.439 how sensory-motor processing coordination can actually contribute to the development of rituals. 01:02:50.439 --> 01:03:01.579 And more sort of, how can I say, more sort of encultured actions, high-level actions, 01:03:02.959 --> 01:03:10.139 and how there's a continuity between joint action, ritualized joint action, 01:03:10.879 --> 01:03:12.539 and then sort of full-blown communication. 01:03:12.919 --> 01:03:17.639 And that's sort of a path that we want to explore, actually together with developmentalists. 01:03:17.639 --> 01:03:23.499 Also, we want to understand much more about the development of this phylogenetically 01:03:23.499 --> 01:03:25.839 and autogenetically. That's beautiful. 01:03:26.159 --> 01:03:30.659 Well, Gunther Knopple, thank you very much for this interview. Okay, thank you. 01:03:33.239 --> 01:03:38.899 The CSN Podcast was produced by the Convergent Science Network of Biometrics 01:03:38.899 --> 01:03:45.419 and Bio-Hybrid Systems, a project funded by the European 7th Research Framework Programme. 01:03:45.360 --> 01:04:13.609 Music.