Joint action and group action made precise

The paper argues that there are two main kinds of joint action, direct joint bringing about (or performing) something (expressed in terms of a DO-operator) and jointly seeing to it that something is the case (expressed in terms of a Stit-operator). The former kind of joint action contains conjunctive, disjunctive and sequential action and its central subkinds. While joint seeing to it that something is the case is argued to be necessarily intentional, direct joint performance can also be nonintentional. Actions performed by social groups are analyzed in terms of the notions of joint action (basically DO and Stit).A precise semantical analysis of the aforementioned kinds of joint action is given in terms of time-trees. With each participant a tree is connected, and the trees are joined defining joint possible worlds in terms of state-expressing nodes from the trees. Sentences containing DO and Stit are semantically evaluated with respect to such joint possible worlds. Intentional joint actions are characterized in terms of the notion of we-intention (joint intention), characterized formally by means of a special operator.     

Activation of action rules in action observation

Visually perceiving an action may activate corresponding motor programs. This automatic motor activation can occur both for higher level (i.e., the goal of an action) and for lower level (i.e., the specific effector with which it is executed) aspects of an action. The authors used a tool-use action paradigm to experimentally dissociate priming effects for observing the target, the movement, or the target-to-movement mapping of a tool-use action. In 3 experiments, participants took turns in acting, observing the tool-use action of another person in trial n-1, and executing an action in trial n. Trial transitions from n-1 to n were manipulated in 4 conditions with (a) mapping repeated and movement and target changed, (b) target repeated and movement and mapping changed, (c) movement repeated and target and mapping changed, or (d) all components repeated. Results indicate priming effects for repeating the target-to-movement mapping (i.e., the action rule) of a tool-use action and suggest that a rather abstract action schema is activated during action observation.     

The impact of anticipated action effects on action planning

Three experiments with a total of 72 participants investigated the assumption that motor actions are planned in terms of their sensorial effects. Participants had to prepare a certain action A that consistently led to a sensorial effect (a tone of certain pitch). Instead of (in Experiment 1) or before (in Experiments 2 and 3) the execution of the prepared action, another response B had to be carried out, which either resulted in the same or in a different auditory effect (a tone of same or different pitch). It was found that a to-be-executed response B was in general initiated more quickly when it resulted in the same effect as a concurrently prepared response A. The results are considered as evidence for the basic notion that the preparation and initiation even of very simple actions is mediated by an anticipation of their reafferences.     

Sequence learning by action,observation and action observation

The serial reaction time (SRT) task was used to compare learning of a complex sequence by action (participants responded to sequential stimuli), by observation (participants watched but did not respond to sequential stimuli), and by action‐observation (participants watched an expert model responding to sequential stimuli). Each of these groups was compared with an untrained control group. Experiment 1 indicated that both observation and action‐observation were sufficient to support learning of a 12‐item second‐order conditional (SOC) sequence. Experiment 2 confirmed these findings, and showed that, as indexed by reaction time (RT), the extent of learning by observation and by action‐observation was comparable to that of action‐based learning. Using a recognition test, Experiment 2 and 3 also provided evidence that, whereas learning by stimulus observation was explicit, learning by action‐observation was implicit. These findings are consistent with a connection between motor systems and implicit learning, but do not support the hypothesis that overt action is necessary for implicit learning.     

Psychoanalytic action explanation

Psychoanalysis is concerned with neurotic behaviour that counts as an action if one takes into account “repressed” mental states. Freud's paradigmatic examples are a challenge for philosophical theories of action explanation. The main problem is that such symptomatic behaviour is, in a characteristic way, irrational. In line with standard interpretations, I will recap that psychoanalytic action explanation is not in accordance with Davidson's classical reason-explanation model, and I will recall that Freud's unconsciousness is not a second mind with its own rationality but that it is non-propositional in character. However, I then will argue that this characterization is not discriminating enough to explain the dynamical unconscious and overlooks the crucial role of “counter-cathexis”. With counter-cathexis the relevant desire turns out to be a complex with two inseparable aspects (“double-aspect view”), so that the causing belief–desire pair is still part of the space of reasons, although it cannot rationalize the behaviour. Psychoanalytic action explanation is hence still Davidsonian, albeit in a modified way.     

Thought and action

There are perennial disputes about the scope of reason in human affairs. Some say we can never reason about ends; we can reason only about means. Others argue that this Humean view is mistaken. Still others claim that the crucial and typical use of ‘reason’ in moral contexts is both moralistic and somehow illusory. It seems to me that there are serious confusions in all these traditional contentions. Reason is not the slave of the passions, and although there is a distinctive use of ‘reason’ in moral contexts there is nothing moralistic or illusory about it. The temptation to think there is is dispelled once proper note is taken of 1) the distinction between causes and reasons, 2) the proper context of causal explanations and explanations and justifications by reasons, 3) the distinctive roles of ‘I want...’ and ‘I wish...’ and 4) the diverse, context‐dependent, uses of ‘reason’.     

The influence of action observation on action execution: Dissociating the contribution of action on perception,perception on action,and resolving conflict

For more than 15 years, motor interference paradigms have been used to investigate the influence of action observation on action execution. Most research on so-called automatic imitation has focused on variables that play a modulating role or investigated potential confounding factors. Interestingly, furthermore, a number of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have tried to shed light on the functional mechanisms and neural correlates involved in imitation inhibition. However, these fMRI studies, presumably due to poor temporal resolution, have primarily focused on high-level processes and have neglected the potential role of low-level motor and perceptual processes. In the current EEG study, we therefore aimed to disentangle the influence of low-level perceptual and motoric mechanisms from high-level cognitive mechanisms. We focused on potential congruency differences in the visual N190 ? a component related to the processing of biological motion, the Readiness Potential ? a component related to motor preparation, and the high-level P3 component. Interestingly, we detected congruency effects in each of these components, suggesting that the interference effect in an automatic imitation paradigm is not only related to high-level processes such as self-other distinction but also to more low-level influences of perception on action and action on perception. Moreover, we documented relationships of the neural effects with (autistic) behavior.     

Unintentional collective action

In this paper, I examine the manner in which analyses of the action of single agents have been pressed into service for constructing accounts of collective action. Specifically, I argue that the best analogy to collective action is a class of individual action that Carl Ginet has called ‘aggregate action.’ Furthermore, once we use aggregate action as a model of collective action, then we see that existing accounts of collective action have failed to accommodate an important class of (what I shall call) ‘unintentional collective actions.’     

Temporal perception in joint action: This is MY action

Here we investigated the temporal perception of self- and other-generated actions during sequential joint actions. Participants judged the perceived time of two events, the first triggered by the participant and the second by another agent, during a cooperative or competitive interaction, or by an unspecified mechanical cause. Results showed that participants perceived self-generated events as shifted earlier in time (anticipation temporal judgment bias) and non-self-generated events as shifted later in time (repulsion temporal judgment bias). This latter effect was observed independently from the kind of cause (i.e., agentive or mechanical) or interaction (i.e., cooperative or competitive). We suggest that this might represent a mental process which allows discriminating events that cannot plausibly be linked to one’s own action. When an event immediately follows a self-generated one, temporal judgment biases operate as self-serving biases in order to separate self-generated events from events of another physical causality.     

Language in action

A number of general points behind the story of this paper may be worth setting out separately, now that we have come to the end.There is perhaps one obvious omission to be addressed right away. Although the word information has occurred throughout this paper, it must have struck the reader that we have had nothing to say on what information is. In this respect, our theories may be like those in physics: which do not explain what energy is (a notion which seems quite similar to information in several ways), but only give some basic laws about its behaviour and transmission.     

Mind as action

by James V. Wertsch, Oxford University Press, 1998. ￡22.95 (xii +203 pages) ISBN 0 19 511753 0.     

Intentional action first

The paper motivates a novel research programme in the philosophy of action parallel to the ‘Knowledge First’ programme in epistemology. It is argued that much of the grounds for abandoning the quest for a reductive analysis of knowledge in favour of the Knowledge First alternative is mirrored in the case of intentional action, inviting the hypothesis that intentional action is also, like knowledge, metaphysically basic. The paper goes on to demonstrate the sort of explanatory contribution that intentional action can make once it is no longer taken to be a target for reductive analysis, in explaining other, non-intentional kinds of action and voluntariness.     

Rethinking therapeutic action

Like other core psychoanalytic constructs, the theory of therapeutic action is currently in flux, as theorists of differing persuasions propose different mechanisms. In this article, the authors attempt to integrate developments within and without psychoanalysis to provide a working model of the multifaceted processes involved in producing change in psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. A theory of therapeutic action must describe both what changes (the aims of treatment) and what strategies are likely to be useful in facilitating those changes (technique). The authors believe that single-mechanism theories of therapeutic action, no matter how complex, are unlikely to prove useful at this point because of the variety of targets of change and the variety of methods useful in effecting change in those targets (such as techniques aimed at altering different kinds of conscious and unconscious processes). Interventions that facilitate change may be classified into one of three categories: those that foster insight, those that make use of various mutative aspects of the treatment relationship and a variety of secondary strategies that can be of tremendous importance. They propose that, in all forms of psychoanalytic treatment, we would be more accurate to speak of the therapeutic actions , rather than action .