• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Joint sequence learning

Joint sequence learning



A 20 minute overview over the results of our study. ...

A 20 minute overview over the results of our study.

We attempted to combine the research areas of joint action and implicit learning to provide an explanation for the underlying mechanisms of mirror neurons in joint tasks. Therefore, a shared SRT task in a joint condition was conducted. Joint effects in implicit learning or processing speed were not found. A shared task representation could lead to confusion of competence, a phenomenon explained by ideomotor theory.

Download the presentation for extensive presenter explanations in the notes section.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1

http://www.slideshare.net 1


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Joint sequence learning Joint sequence learning Presentation Transcript

    • Inleiding Methode Resultaten Discussie Gevolgen Joint Sequence Learning Jurjen van der Helden Ricarda Braukmann Dominic Portain Jacek Sliwinski Niels Lettinga
    • Achtergrond  Motivatie Tsai et al, 2006  Eerder onderzoek  Joint Action  Social facilitation theory  Simulation theory  Mirror neuron system  SRT taak  Recognitie taak
    • Hypotheses H1: Snellere reactie als samen gewerkt wordt L R H2: Snellere reactie voor buitenste knoppen
    • Methode  Go/NoGo taak  4 Stimuli, directe reactie  Single / joint condities
    • Methode  SRT taak: lengte: 8 -> 12  Sequentie: SOC opbouw  8 Trainingsblokken, 4 speciale blokken  Training:  Switch:  Pseudorandom
    • Verwachtingen  Joint taak: leren van alle sequentie responses  Gesimuleerde partner in de single condition  Rol van de proefleider
    • H1: p>0.10 Resultaten Geen verschil tussen single en joint Reactietijden Fouten Single condition Joint condition
    • H1: p>0.10 Resultaten H2: p<0.05 RT: positie van knop en proefperson Left button Right button Single Joint
    • Interpretatie Hoofdeffect van de trainingsblokken:  Alle proefpersonen leren (p<0.01)  Anomalie in de eerste 3 single-blokken Onze singles Eerdere singles
    • Interpretatie H1: Geen verschil tussen groepen op leereffect  Shared Representation  Verschil switch/random  Insignificant (p>0.4)  Joint action: minimaal effect op leren Single condition Switch Random Joint condition
    • Interpretatie H2: Interactie posities (knop X proefperson) op RT  Effect alleen in de joint conditie  Joint taak + Ideomotor theory  Activatie van motorische patronen  Poging tot onbewuste reactie op stimuli  Competentieconflict  Bewuste beslissing verhoogt de reactietijden
    • Interpretatie L R Linke proefperson reageert sneller (p<0.05)  Onafhankelijk van de groep  Verklaring: Sequentie?  Inhibition of return  Effect is in de Random conditie te zien  Proefleider zat altijd linksachter  sociale invloed?
    • Implicaties H1  Zelfde leereffect met en gesimuleerde partner  Geen flexibel leergedrag nodig H2  Spatiele competentieproblemen  Vertraagde reactietijden al onder de invloed van een zwakke shared representation
    • Einde  Aanmerkingen?  Conflicten?  Vragen?
    • H1: p>0.10 Leereffecten Single condition Joint condition