Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Professional magicians regularly use pantomimed grasps (i.e., movements towards imagined objects) to deceive audiences. To do so, they learn to shape their hands similarly for real and pantomimed grasps. Here we tested whether this form of motor expertise provides them a significant benefit when processing pantomimed grasps. To this aim, in a one-interval discrimination design, we asked 17 professional magicians and 17 naïve controls to watch video clips of reach-to-grasp movements recorded from naïve participants and judge whether the observed movement was real or pantomimed. All video clips were edited to spatially occlude the grasped object (either present or imagined). Data were analysed within a drift diffusion model approach. Fitting different models showed that, whereas magicians and naïve performed similarly when observing real grasps, magicians had a specific advantage compared with naïve at discriminating pantomimed grasps. These findings suggest that motor expertise may be crucial for detecting relevant cues from hand movement during the discrimination of pantomimed grasps. Results are discussed in terms of motor recalibration.

Keywords

Pantomimed grasp action processing motor expertise motor recalibration drift diffusion model magicians

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abernethy

(1989). Expert-novice differences in perception: How expert does the expert have to be? Journal Canadien des Sciences du Sport/Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 14(1), 27–30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2924219

Abernethy

Zawi

(2007). Pickup of essential kinematics underpins expert perception of movement patterns. Journal of Motor Behavior, 39(5), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.39.5.353-368

Ansuini

Cavallo

Campus

Quarona

Koul

Becchio

(2016). Are we real when we fake? Attunement to object weight in natural and pantomimed grasping movements. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, Article 471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00471

Bogacz

(2007). Optimal decision-making theories: Linking neurobiology with behaviour. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.006

Brenton

Müller

(2018). Is visual-perceptual or motor expertise critical for expert anticipation in sport? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(6), 739–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3453

Burnham

K. P.

Anderson

D. R.

(2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). Springer.

Cañal-Bruland

van der Kamp

van Kesteren

(2010). An examination of motor and perceptual contributions to the recognition of deception from others’ actions. Human Movement Science, 29(1), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2009.10.001

Cavina-Pratesi

Kuhn

Ietswaart

Milner

A. D.

(2011). The magic grasp: Motor expertise in deception. PLOS ONE, 6(2), Article e16568. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016568

Cocchini

Galligan

Mora

Kuhn

(2018). The magic hand: Plasticity of mental hand representation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(11), 2314–2324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817741606

10.

Efron

(1982). The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling plans. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611970319

11.

Flanagan

J. R.

Bowman

M. C.

Johansson

R. S.

(2006). Control strategies in object manipulation tasks. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16(6), 650–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONB.2006.10.005

12.

Forstmann

B. U.

Wagenmakers

E.-J. J.

(2015). Model-based cognitive neuroscience: A conceptual introduction. In Forstmann

B. U.

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

(Eds.), An introduction to model-based cognitive neuroscience (pp. 139–156). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2236-9_7

13.

Fukui

Inui

(2013). How vision affects kinematic properties of pantomimed prehension movements. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 44. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00044

14.

Gelman

Hill

(2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.

15.

Gold

J. I.

Shadlen

M. N.

(2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30(1), 535–574. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.113038

16.

Goodale

M. A.

Jakobson

L. S.

Keillor

J. M.

(1994). Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements. Neuropsychologia, 32(10), 1159–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(94)90100-7

17.

Hesterberg

Moore

D. S.

Monaghan

Clipson

Epstein

(2003). Bootstrap methods and permutation tests. In McCabe

G. P.

Moore

D. S.

(Eds.), Introduction to the practice of statistics (pp. 1–70). W. H. Freeman.

18.

Jackson

R. C.

Warren

Abernethy

(2006). Anticipation skill and susceptibility to deceptive movement. Acta Psychologica, 123(3), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.02.002

19.

Króliczak

Cavina-Pratesi

Goodman

D. A.

Culham

J. C.

(2007). What does the brain do when you fake it? An FMRI study of pantomimed and real grasping. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97(3), 2410–2422. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00778.2006

20.

Laimgruber

Goldenberg

Hermsdörfer

(2005). Manual and hemispheric asymmetries in the execution of actual and pantomimed prehension. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 682–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.09.004

21.

Lewis

J. W.

(2006). Cortical networks related to human use of tools. Neuroscientist, 12(3), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858406288327

22.

Ludbrook

Dudley

(1998). Why permutation tests are superior to t and F tests in biomedical research. The American Statistician, 52(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.2307/2685470

23.

Matzke

Dolan

C. V.

Logan

G. D.

Brown

S. D.

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

(2013). Bayesian parametric estimation of stop-signal reaction time distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1047–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030543

24.

Müller

Abernethy

Farrow

(2006). How do world-class cricket batsmen anticipate a bowler’s intention? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(12), 2162–2186. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290600576595

25.

Phillips

Natter

M. B.

Egan

E. J. L.

(2015). Magically deceptive biological motion—The French Drop Sleight. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 371. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00371

26.

Ratcliff

(2002). A diffusion model account of response time and accuracy in a brightness discrimination task: Fitting real data and failing to fit fake but plausible data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 278–291. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196283

27.

Ratcliff

McKoon

(2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420

28.

Ratcliff

Smith

P. L.

Brown

S. D.

McKoon

(2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007

29.

Rinsma

van der Kamp

Dicks

Cañal-Bruland

(2017). Nothing magical: Pantomimed grasping is controlled by the ventral system. Experimental Brain Research, 235(6), 1823–1833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4868-1

30.

Schütz-Bosbach

Prinz

(2007). Perceptual resonance: Action-induced modulation of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(8), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.005

31.

Sebanz

Shiffrar

(2009). Detecting deception in a bluffing body: The role of expertise. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 170–175. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.1.170

32.

Spiegelhalter

D. J.

Best

N. G.

Carlin

B. P.

Van der Linde

(2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 64(4), 583–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353

33.

Spiegelhalter

D. J.

Best

N. G.

Carlin

B. P.

Van der Linde

(2014). The deviance information criterion: 12 years on. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76(3), 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12062

34.

Voss

Rothermund

Voss

(2004). Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation. Memory & Cognition, 32(7), 1206–1220. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196893

35.

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

(2009). Methodological and empirical developments for the Ratcliff diffusion model of response times and accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 641–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802205067

36.

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

Van Der Maas

H. L. J.

Grasman

R. P. P. P

. (2007). An EZ-diffusion model for response time and accuracy. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194023

37.

Whitwell

R. L.

Ganel

Byrne

C. M.

Goodale

M. A.

(2015). Real-time vision, tactile cues, and visual form agnosia: Removing haptic feedback from a “natural” grasping task induces pantomime-like grasps. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, Article 216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00216

38.

Wiecki

T. V.

Sofer

Frank

M. J.

(2013). HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the drift-diffusion model in python. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 7, Article 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2013.00014

39.

World Medical Association General Assembly. (2008). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. World Medical Journal, 54, 122–125.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB