Die Fähigkeiten von Athleten verändern deren Wahrnehmung von Handlungen
„Embodiment” der visuellen Wahrnehmungvon menschlichen Bewegungen
Abstract
Zusammenfassung. Wie nimmt das menschliche visuelle System Handlungen wahr? – Traditionelle Modelle der visuellen Wahrnehmung nehmen an, dass bei allen Beobachtern die gleichen visuellen Prozesse der Analyse von visuellen Stimuli unterschiedlicher Art zu Grunde liegen. Dieser theoretische Ansatz sagt vorher, dass unterschiedliche Personen Gegenstände und Handlungen in gleicher Art und Weise wahrnehmen, unabhängig davon, ob sich ihr Bewegungssystem beispielsweise durch krankheitsbedingte Veränderungen oder Trainingsanpassungen unterscheidet. Demgegenüber nehmen Theorien der embodied perception an, dass individuelle Fähigkeiten des Beobachters die visuelle Wahrnehmung beeinflussen. Ausgehend von diesem Ansatz ist das, was man sieht, dadurch bestimmt, was man physisch tun (kann). Menschliche Bewegung wird dabei als eine spezielle Kategorie von visuellen Bewegungsreizen angesehen, da es die einzige Bewegungsart ist, welche der Mensch ausführen und wahrnehmen kann. Der vorliegende Artikel gibt einen Überblick über aktuelle neuro- und verhaltenswissenschaftliche Befunde zur visuellen Wahrnehmung menschlicher Bewegung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rolle des motorischen Systems. Dabei wird auf die Wahrnehmung von Athleten eingegangen, da diese Personengruppe über spezifische motorische und visuelle Fähigkeiten verfügt, welche den Erklärungswert traditioneller Theorien der visuellen Wahrnehmung kritisch hinterfragen.
Abstract. How does the human visual system detect and interpret human actions? Traditional models of the visual system suggest that the same set of visual processes is used by all observers to analyze all classes of visual images. This theoretical framework predicts that observers, whether paralyzed or athletic, analyze and perceive objects and actions similarly. Embodied theories of perception assert that visual processes are constrained by an observer’s motor abilities. According to this approach, what one sees is determined by what one can physically do. Furthermore, human movement represents a special category of visual motion stimuli because it is the only type of motion that humans can both produce and perceive. This article reviews recent behavioral and neurophysiological research on the visual perception of human movement and focuses on the role of the motor system in this process. Action perception by athletes is emphasized because their special motor and visual abilities provide a particularly important challenge to traditional theories of vision.
Literatur
(1989). Expert-novice differences in perception: How expert does the expert have to be? Canadian Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 27– 30.
(1990). Expertise, visual search and information pick-up in squash. Perception, 19, 63– 77.
(2008). Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 1109– 1116.
(2003). fMRI responses to video and point-light displays of moving humans and manipulable objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 991– 1001.
(1999). Visual-motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 1076– 1096.
(2007). Perception of human motion. Annual Reviews Psychology, 58, 47– 73.
(2004). Neural circuits involved in the recognition of actions performed by nonconspecifics: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 114– 126.
(2005). Action observation and acquired motor skills: an fMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1243– 1249.
(2006). Seeing or doing? Influence of visual and motor familiarity in action observation. Current Biology, 16, 1905– 1910.
(2009). Response bias in judging deceptive movements. Acta Psychologica, 130, 235– 240.
(2010). An examination of motor and perceptual contributions to the recognition of deception from other’s actions. Human Movement Science, 29, 94– 102.
(2006). School-aged children exhibit domain-specific responses to biological motion. Social Neuroscience, 1, 396– 411.
(2006). Non-visual motor learning influences the recognition of biological motion, Current Biology, 16, 69– 74.
(2002). The role of experience in the perception of biological motion. Unpublished dissertation . Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
(2002). Perceptual learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
(1981). How direct is visual perception? Cognition, 9, 139– 196.
(2005). Hand movement observation by individuals born without hands: Phantom limb experience constrains visual limb perception. Experimental Brain Research, 164, 341– 346.
(1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. East Norwalk, CT, USA: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
(2007). Fitts’ Law Holds for Action Perception, Psychological Science, 18, 95– 99.
et al. (2000). Brain areas involved in perception of biological motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 711– 720.
(2004). Your own action influences how you perceive another person’s action. Current Biology, 14, 493– 498.
(1994). Erfolgsgeheimnisse der Wahrnehmung. Synergetik als Schlüssel zum Gehirn. Berlin: Ullstein.
(1984). The measurement of visual motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2009). Global information pickup underpins anticipation of tennis shot direction. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41, 158– 170.
(2006). Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive movement. Acta Psychologica, 123, 355– 371.
(2005). Walking perception by walking observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 157– 169.
(1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 195– 204.
(1976). Spatio-temporal differentiation and integration in visual motion perception: An experimental and theoretical analysis of calculus-like functionsin visual data processing. Psychological Research, 38, 379– 393.
(2007). Interference effect of observed human movement onaction is due to velocity profile of biological motion. Social Neuroscience, 2, 158– 166.
(2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13, 522– 525.
(1998). Differences in several perceptual abilities between experts and novices in basketball, volleyball and water polo. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 899– 912.
(2008). Embodiment, ego-space and action: Carnegie Mellon Symposia on Cognition Series. Hove Sussex: Psychology Press.
(2009). Two-year-olds with autism orient to non-social contingencies rather than biological motion. Nature, 459, 257– 261.
(2001). Predicting the effects of actions: Interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science, 12, 467– 472.
(2005). Recognizing people from their movement. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 210– 220.
(2007). Motor Learning and Control. Concepts and Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.
(1895/1972). Movement. New York: Arno Press & New York Times.
(1982). Vision : A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
(2003). Visual perception in children: Human, animal and virtual movement activates different cortical areas. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 51, 37– 44.
(1993). Recognition of animal locomotion from dynamic point-light displays. Perception, 22, 759– 766.
(2006). How do world-class cricket batsmen anticipate a bowler’s intention? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 2162– 2186.
(2001). Recognition of point-light biological motion displays by young children. Perception, 30, 925– 933.
(2006). Developing body representations: A review of infants’ responses to biological-motion displays. In G. Knoblich, M. Grosjean, I. Thornton & M. Shiffrar (Eds.), Perception of the human body from the inside out (pp. 305–322). New York NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
(2009). The visual perception of human and animal motion in point-light displays, Social Neuroscience, 4, 332– 346.
(2009). Viewpoint and the recognition of people from their movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 35, 39– 49.
(1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129– 154.
(2006). Embodied perception and the economy of action. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 110– 122.
(1995). Perceiving geographical slant. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 409– 428.
(2003). Electrophysiology and brain imaging of biological motion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London. B Biological Sciences, 358, 435– 445.
(2007). Visual perception and neural correlates of novel ”biological motion. Vision Research, 47, 2786– 2797.
(1995). The psychological reality of the body schema: A test with normal participants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 334– 343.
(2007). Action during body perception: Processing time affects self-other correspondences. Social Neuroscience, 2, 134– 149.
(2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169– 192.
(2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 661– 670.
(2007). Superior temporal and premotor brain areas necessary for biological motion perception. Brain, 130, 2452– 2461.
(2004). Point-light biological motion perception activates human premotor cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 6181– 6188.
(2009). Detecting deception in a bluffing body: The role of expertise. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 170– 175.
(2010). Lesions to the motor system affect action understanding. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 413– 426.
(1984). Ecological constraints on internal representation: Resonant kinematics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and dreaming. Psychological Review, 91, 417– 447.
(1990). Apparent motion of the human body. Psychological Science, 1, 257– 264.
(1993). Timing and apparent motion path choice with human body photographs. Psychological Science, 4, 379– 384.
(2010). Seeing human movement as inherently social. In R. B. Adams, N. Ambady, K. Nakayama & S. Shimojo (Eds.), The Science of Social Vision. New York: Oxford University Press.
(1997). The perception of biological motion across apertures. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 51– 59.
(1996). Increased motion linking across edges with decreased luminance contrast, edge width and duration. Vision Research, 36, 2061– 2067.
(2002). The visual analysis of bodily motion. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention and Performance, Vol. XIX. pp. 381– 399). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(2000). New aspects of motion perception: Selective neural encoding of apparent human movements, NeuroReport, 11, 109– 115.
(2007). Neural activity involved in the perception of human and meaningful object motion. NeuroReport, 18, 1125– 1128.
(2002). Motor competence in the perception of dynamic events: a tutorial. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action: Attention and performance, Vol. XIX, (pp. 406– 442). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(1992). Biological movements look uniform: evidence of motor-perceptual interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 603– 623.
(2008). Embodied communication in humans and machines. New York: Oxford University Press.
(1998). Visual search strategy, selective attention and expertise in soccer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 111– 128.
(2001). Perceiving imitatable stimuli: Consequences of isomorphism between input and output. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 543– 553.
(2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 625– 636.
(2008). How did we get from there to here? An evolutionary perspective on embodied cognition. In P. Calvo & T. Gomila (Eds.), Directions for an Embodied Cognitive Science: Towards an Integrated Approach. München: Elsevier.
(2007). Working memory for language is not special: Evidence for an articulatory loop for novel stimuli. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 470– 473.
(2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 460– 473.
(2010). Functional MRI reveals expert-novice differences during sport-related anticipation. NeuroReport, 21, 94– 98.
