Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
DOI 10.1007/s00426-011-0383-y
R EV IE W
Long- and short-term plastic modeling of action prediction
abilities in volleyball
Cosimo Urgesi · Maria Maddalena Savonitto ·
Franco Fabbro · Salvatore M. Aglioti
Received: 29 June 2011 / Accepted: 29 September 2011 / Published online: 2 November 2011
© Springer-Verlag 2011
Abstract Athletes show superior abilities not only in exe-
cuting complex actions, but also in anticipating others’
moves. Here, we explored how visual and motor experi-
ences contribute to forge elite action prediction abilities in
volleyball players. Both adult athletes and supporters were
more accurate than novices in predicting the fate of volley-
ball Xoating services by viewing the initial ball trajectory,
while only athletes could base their predictions on body
kinematics. Importantly, adolescents assigned to physical
practice training improved their ability to predict the fate of
the actions by reading body kinematics, while those
assigned to the observational practice training improved
only in understanding the ball trajectory. The results sug-
gest that physical and observational practice might provide
complementary and mutually reinforcing contributions to
the superior perceptual abilities of elite athletes. Moreover,
direct motor experience is required to establish novel per-
ceptuo-motor representations that are used to predict oth-
ers’ actions ahead of realization.
C. Urgesi (&) · M. M. Savonitto · F. Fabbro
Dipartimento di Scienze Umane,
Università di Udine, via Margreth, 3, 33100 Udine, Italy
e-mail: cosimo.urgesi@uniud.it
C. Urgesi · F. Fabbro
Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere ScientiWco
‘E. Medea’, Polo Friuli Venezia Giulia,
San Vito al Tagliamento, Pordenone, Italy
S. M. Aglioti
Dipartimento di Psicologia,
Università Sapienza di Roma, Rome, Italy
S. M. Aglioti
Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere ScientiWco
Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy
123
Introduction
Common coding hypotheses suggest a shared representa-
tion of perceived and executed actions (Hommel, Musseler,
Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001; Prinz, 1997) and a bidirec-
tional link between perceptual and motor codes. Behavioral
studies have shown that perceiving static or dynamic dis-
plays of moving body parts aVects the execution of congru-
ent as compared with incongruent body movements (Brass,
Bekkering, Wohlschläger, & Prinz, 2000; Kilner, Paulig-
nan, & Blakemore, 2003; Stürmer, Aschersleben, & Prinz,
2000). Moreover, contextual active execution of a motor
task strongly inXuences action perception (Springer et al.,
2011). Accessing the motor representations used during
planning and execution of actions might be a deceivingly
simple mechanism for the striking ability to create an antic-
ipatory representation of others’ actions (Perrett, Xiao, Bar-
raclough, Keysers, & Oram, 2009; Schütz-Bosbach &
Prinz, 2007; Wilson & Knoblich, 2005). Indeed, the full
sequence of motion is rarely visible during interactions
with a dynamic world and missing information needs com-
pletion via top-down modulation (Komatsu, 2006; Pessoa,
Thompson, & Noë, 1998). Furthermore, perceiving an
external stimulus as well as planning the appropriate motor
response takes time, inducing an intrinsic delay of brain
reactions to external stimuli, which is incompatible with the
dynamics of moving stimuli. Thus, to interact optimally
with moving objects or creatures, the perceptual system
needs to build up an anticipatory representation of the
motion sequence using internal models of the rules that
govern the motion of objects in the environment (Hubbard,
2005; Motes, Hubbard, Courtney, & Rypma, 2008; Zago &
Lacquaniti, 2005). While visual experience with moving
objects or creatures may contribute to the creation of pre-
dictive models of motion, we may additionally use our
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
previous motor experience and knowledge to create an
anticipatory representation of human actions (Flach,
Knoblich, & Prinz, 2004; Ramnani & Miall, 2004; Verfaillie
& Daems, 2002). The fact that diVerent neurocognitive pro-
cesses are involved in the representation of predictive mod-
els of human and non-human motion patterns is suggested
by studies showing a compression of time perception
and an increased precision of time discrimination during
observation of biological versus non-biological motion
(Moscatelli, Polito, & Lacquaniti, 2011; Carrozzo,
Moscatelli, & Lacquaniti, 2010; Orgs, Bestmann, Schuur,
& Haggard, 2011). Such eVects are reminiscent of the com-
pression of subjective time during voluntary actions (e.g.,
Wenke & Haggard, 2009) and suggest that similar time per-
ception processes are called into play in action execution
and observation.
The ability to create an anticipatory representation of
ongoing actions is crucial in sport, where, due to the dra-
matically fast times required by motor performance, ath-
letes must base their prediction on the initial action cues
provided by the opponent players. Indeed, waiting to fully
perceive the consequences of their moves would be highly
ineVective. It is well established that achieving excellence
in sport involves not only the ability to execute complex
actions but also to understand early the moves of the other
players (Abernethy & Zawi, 2007; Aglioti, Cesari, Romani,
& Urgesi, 2008). Much less is known on how superior per-
ceptuo-motor ability is established during sport learning. In
the present paper, we review previous evidence on the rela-
tive role of visual and motor representations of actions and
on the eVects of visual and motor learning on action execu-
tion and perception. Then, we present the results of two
behavioral experiments on the role of observational and
physical practice on action prediction in volleyball.
Overlapping representations for action execution
and observation
Neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies have pro-
vided evidence that action execution and action observation
share at least partially overlapping neural structures. The
direct demonstration in monkeys (Kraskov, Dancause,
Quallo, Shepherd, & Lemon, 2009; Rizzolatti & Craighero,
2004; di Pellegrino, Fadiga, Fogassi, Gallese, & Rizzolatti,
1992) birds (Prather, Peters, Nowicki, Mooney, 2008) and
humans (Mukamel, Ekstrom, Kaplan, Iacoboni, & Fried,
2010) of mirror neurons discharging both during action
execution and during observation of the very same actions
has provided a strong evidence for the neural substrate of
the action-perception common coding. Neuroimaging stud-
ies have shown that action observation in humans engages a
network of fronto-parietal areas which are also involved in
action execution (Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004; Van
543
Overwalle & Baetens, 2009). Furthermore, recent studies
have reported action-speciWc unimodal visual and motor
(Chong, Cunnington, Williams, Kanwisher, & Mattingley,
2008; Dinstein et al., 2010; Kilner, Neal, Weiskopf, Fris-
ton, & Frith, 2009; Lingnau, Gesierich, & Caramazza,
2009) as well as cross-modal adaptation of neural activity
in these fronto-parietal areas (Chong et al., 2008; Dinstein
et al., 2010; Kilner et al., 2009), suggesting the same neural
population may be involved in the representation of speciWc
actions that are either observed or executed. Importantly,
repeated execution of pulling or pushing actions may
induce a bias to categorize ambiguous actions as opposite
to the one that had been trained, likely through a motor-to-
visual adaptation of visuo-motor neurons (Cattaneo et al.,
2010). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the
inferior frontal gyrus disrupted this visual aftereVect, sug-
gesting that this area contains mirror-like populations of
neurons that are recruited in action execution and observa-
tion and may directly inXuence the visual perception of
actions (Cattaneo et al., 2010). Accordingly, dysfunctional
activity of the inferior frontal cortex provoked by repetitive
TMS or brain lesion is associated to impairments in diVer-
ent types of action perception tasks, including: discriminat-
ing static hands with diVerent implied actions (Candidi,
Urgesi, Ionta, & Aglioti, 2008; Urgesi, Candidi, Ionta, &
Aglioti, 2007); estimating the weight of objects from the
observation of lifting actions (Pobric & Hamilton, 2006);
recognizing the correct motor performance of transitive or
intransitive gestures (Pazzaglia, Smania, Corato, & Aglioti,
2008a); matching viewed gestures to their typical sound
(Pazzaglia, Pizzamiglio, Pes & Aglioti, 2008b); and order-
ing in the correct temporal sequence a series of snapshots
depicting the diVerent phases of an action (Fazio et al.,
2009). Thus, previous studies have shown not only that
observed and executed actions share a common neural rep-
resentation, but also that the activity of the action represen-
tations in the motor system aVects action perception
(Avenanti & Urgesi, 2011).
Visual representation of implied actions
Information on the neural underpinnings of predictive
motion perception derives from studies of the brain activa-
tions associated to the extrapolation of motion information
from static snapshots that depict objects or creatures in the
middle of motion. Viewing these implied motion stimuli
activates the same medial temporal cortex areas that are
involved in processing real motion (Kourtzi & Kanwisher,
2000; Proverbio, Riva, & Zani, 2009; Senior et al., 2000).
Furthermore, studies in humans (Krekelberg et al., 2005;
Lorteije et al., 2007) and monkeys (Krekelberg et al., 2003)
suggest that the same populations of cells in extrastriate
visual areas code for both implied and real motion.
123
544
Importantly, TMS interference with medial temporal area
abolishes the representational momentum eVect for objects
(Senior, Ward, & David, 2002), i.e. the distortion of the
recognition memory for the Wnal position or conWguration
of a moving object forward along its path of motion (Freyd,
1983). Thus, there is evidence that creating a full dynamic
representation of motion from viewing only single snap-
shots may rely on the activation of the visual motion repre-
sentations likely established during our visual experiences
with moving objects.
Besides medial temporal cortex activation (Kourtzi &
Kanwisher, 2000; Peigneux et al., 2000), observation of
static body postures implying actions engenders activation
also in the parietal (Hermsdörfer et al., 2001) and superior
temporal sulcus (STS) areas (Peuskens, Vanrie, Verfaillie,
& Orban, 2005). Furthermore, neurons in the monkey’s
STS cortex respond to the presentation of both moving bod-
ies and static images of body postures implying actions
(Barraclough, Xiao, Oram, & Perrett, 2006; Jellema &
Perrett, 2003a; Jellema & Perrett 2003b; Perrett et al., 2009;
Puce & Perrett, 2003). Importantly, STS neurons respond-
ing to implied actions failed to respond to static postures
that corresponded to the starting-point of the actions but
showed a strong response to the articulated static postures
that corresponded to the end-point of the actions (Jellema &
Perrett, 2003b). In a similar vein, the response of some STS
neurons to static body postures was inXuenced by which
action was previously observed, with a strong, selective
response to a particular body action, independently from
the compatibility between the action end-points and the
static body posture (Jellema & Perrett, 2003a). This sug-
gests that the Wring of STS neurons is inXuenced by the per-
ceptual history of the action sequence in which a body
posture is presented. Furthermore, STS neurons increased
their response after occlusion of the action (Baker, Keysers,
Jellema, Wicker, & Perrett, 2001) suggesting that they
derive hidden information from the representations
acquired during perception of the previous phases of the
action.
Motor representation of implied actions
Recent studies have shown that perception of implied
motion of human bodies and body parts engenders activa-
tion not only in occipito-temporal areas, but also within the
motor system (Proverbio et al., 2009; Urgesi, Moro, Cand-
idi, & Aglioti, 2006a). Using single-pulse TMS, we showed
that passive viewing of static images implying body actions
triggers mirror motor facilitation (Urgesi et al., 2006), sug-
gesting that the frontal node of the human mirror neuron
system that matches action observation and execution (di
Pellegrino et al., 1992; Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004) may
play a major role in the extrapolation of dynamic information
123
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
from static images that imply body actions. Furthermore, in
a further single-pulse TMS study (Urgesi et al., 2010), we
showed that mirror motor facilitation may be selectively
linked to the extraction of dynamic information about for-
ward but not backward action paths. Indeed, observation of
start and middle phases of hand actions engendered a sig-
niWcantly higher mirror motor facilitation than observing
their Wnal postures, independently from the Wnger conWgu-
ration at diVerent hand apertures. These results are in keep-
ing with the Wndings that mirror motor facilitation is
suppressed by the artiWcial introduction of delayed aper-
tures or sudden closure of Wngers during action observation
(Gangitano, Mottaghy, & Pascual-Leone, 2004) and that
motor activation has been found in response to symbolic
cues signaling an upcoming movement (Kilner, Vargas,
Duval, Blakemore, & Sirigu, 2004). Thus, mirror mapping
seems to be inXuenced by the predictability of the temporal
sequence of observed movements.
A similar temporal modulation has been reported for the
Wring properties of mirror neurons in monkeys’ ventral pre-
motor cortex, some of which discharge maximally during
observation of the last phases of grasping (Umiltà et al.,
2001), others stop Wring when the target object has been
achieved, while others continue to discharge also during the
active holding phase (Gallese, Fadiga, Fogassi, & Rizzol-
atti, 1996). Furthermore, in keeping with the response of
STS neurons (Baker et al., 2001), mirror neurons are acti-
vated also when the Wnal part of an object grasp action can-
not be seen but only predicted from contextual information
(Umiltà et al., 2001). Thus, mirror neurons may code the
outcome of goal-directed actions even when it is not appar-
ent in the visual scene.
However, information about hidden actions may be
obtained from previous perceptual experience with the
action sequence or from the motor representation used dur-
ing action execution. The response of the STS neurons to
body posture is inXuenced by previous action perception
experiences (Jellema & Perrett, 2003a), suggesting these
neurons may use visual information to form a representa-
tion of ongoing actions (Perrett et al., 2009). This represen-
tation is purely visual, as STS neurons do not respond
during action execution (Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004).
Conversely, mirror neurons matching action observation
and execution may allow observers to use previous motor
experience with similar actions in order to predict the future
course of impending actions ahead of their realization
(Wilson & Knoblich, 2005).
InXuence of visual and motor expertise on the action
observation network
Using motor representations to predict others’ actions is
dependent upon the observers’ motor repertoire. While the
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
studies on whether the action observation network responds
also to robotic movements have given controversial Wnd-
ings, several neuroimaging studies have shown that the
activation of the action observation network is modulated
by the observer’s motor experience (Calvo-Merino, Glaser,
Grèzes, Passingham, & Haggard, 2005; Calvo-Merino,
Grèzes, Glaser, Passingham, & Haggard, 2006; Cross,
Hamilton, & Grafton, 2006; Cross, Kraemer, Hamilton,
Kelley, & Grafton, 2009a; Orgs et al., 2008; Reithler et al.,
2007). In particular, observing dance moves engenders
greater activation of temporal and fronto-parietal areas in
expert dancers than in participants naïve to the observed
dance style (Calvo-Merino et al., 2005). Since, however,
not only motor but also visual experience is acquired during
action performance, in a subsequent study the authors
(Calvo-Merino et al., 2006) compared the activations of the
action observation network of male and female dancers
during observation of gender-speciWc dance moves. This
allowed them to control for the relative role of visual expe-
rience, which was common to both types of moves, and
motor experience, which was speciWc for one’s own gender
moves. The authors found that premotor, parietal and cere-
bellum activations were higher when participants viewed
dance moves belonging to their’ own gender repertoire,
while temporal areas were not modulated.
Similar results were obtained in another series of neuro-
imaging investigations that compared the changes in the
activation of the action observation network after observa-
tional and physical learning of dance moves (Cross et al.,
2006; Cross et al., 2009a; Cross, Hamilton, Kraemer, Kel-
ley, & Grafton, 2009b). Largely overlapping increases of
activation, mainly in right premotor and left inferior parie-
tal areas, were found during observation of trained and
watched moves (as compared to untrained moves) (Cross
et al., 2009a). Moreover, speciWc modulation for the trained
as compared to the watched moves was found in two areas
of the right dorsal premotor cortex. The opposite contrast
did not reveal any speciWc activation for the watched
moves. These results suggest that action execution may
shape the fronto-parietal sectors of the action observation
network more intensively and extensively than action
observation (Cross et al., 2009a).
InXuence of visual and motor expertise on action execution
The notion of common representations of executed and
observed actions has a notable interest in applicative Welds
like neurorehabilitation (Garrison, Winstein, & Aziz-Zadeh,
2010; Small et al., 2010) and sport learning (Holmes &
Calmels, 2008). Indeed, the possibility to acquire new
motor skills through action observation may be helpful when
physical practice cannot take place (e.g. in injury-related
545
immobilization or fatigue conditions). Behavioral studies in
the Weld of motor control have shown that observational
practice of movements leads to subsequent improved motor
performance (Ashford, Bennett, & Davids, 2006), although
the extent of the beneWt may be lower as compared to physi-
cal practice. Thus, action observation may induce the forma-
tion of a motor memory trace also in the absence of actual
muscle contraction and perception of sensory feedback (Ste-
fan et al., 2005). Interference with primary motor cortex
activity disrupts the consolidation of motor memories
acquired after physical (Muellbacher et al., 2002) and obser-
vational (Brown, Wilson, & Gribble, 2009) practice, thus
suggesting that both types of training induce changes of
movement representation in primary motor cortex (Censor &
Cohen, 2011). Interestingly, several movement properties
may be acquired during observational practice, including
coordination patterns (Boutin, Fries, Panzer, Shea, & Blan-
din, 2010; Gruetzmacher, Panzer, Blandin, & Shea, 2011;
Heyes & Foster, 2002; Vinter & Perruchet, 2002), timing
(Hayes, Timmis, & Bennett, 2009; Hayes, Elliott, & Bennett,
2010; Ong & Hodges, 2010) and force scaling (Mattar &
Gribble, 2005; Porro, Facchin, Fusi, Dri, & Fadiga, 2007).
Furthermore, like for physical training, the observation-
related improvements in a speciWc motor task can be
transferred to a diVerent one (Buchanan & Wright, 2011;
Gruetzmacher et al., 2011; Hayes et al., 2010; Mattar &
Gribble, 2005; Ong & Hodges, 2010; Shea, Wright, Wulf, &
Whitacre, 2000). Importantly, however, motor skill acquisition
is not identical when mediated by physical or observational
practice, as suggested by the Wnding that their combination
resulted in a greater advantage on transfer tasks (Shea et al.,
2000). Advantages of physical practice, for example, transfer
to motor tasks with analogous motor coordinates (i.e., using
the opposite limb to control the same pattern of muscle con-
tractions and joint angles). In contrast, advantages of obser-
vational practice transfer to tasks with diVerent motor
coordinates but analogous visuo-spatial coordinates (i.e.,
using the opposite limb to control movements with the same
direction in the external space) (Gruetzmacher et al., 2011).
Moreover, unlike execution, observation of visuo-motor
adaptation to reaching movements in a perturbed environ-
ment did not induce any after-eVects (i.e. the unwanted per-
sistence of compensatory movements in an environment that
do not require such compensations) (Ong & Hodges, 2010).
This suggests that observational practice does not allow
updating internal sensorimotor models of actions.
InXuence of visual and motor expertise on action
perception
It is well known that visual experience improves discrimi-
nation of visual stimuli (Sasaki, Nanez, & Watanabe, 2010),
123
546
including body actions (Calvo-Merino, Urgesi, Orgs,
Aglioti, & Haggard, 2010; Maslovat, Hodges, Krigolson, &
Handy, 2010). This may not be surprising because action
execution is typically coupled with the visual perception of
one’s own movements (Maslovat et al., 2010). Importantly,
action execution could improve the visual discrimination of
full (Hecht, Vogt, & Prinz, 2001) and point-light (Casile &
Giese, 2006) displays of the same action even if no visual
feedback was provided during the execution phase. Further-
more, visual perception improvements were obtained after
active as well passive movement execution (Hecht et al.,
2001), thus suggesting that the aVerent kinesthetic signals
are suYcient to establish a visual representation of the
action.
Studies of motor and visual experts suggest that motor
experience is extremely relevant for action perception. In
particular, behavioral investigations of elite athletes have
shown that motor experts present superior abilities not only
in the execution of complex actions, but also in the predic-
tion and anticipation of the behavior of other players (Aber-
nethy & Zawi, 2007; Abernethy, Zawi, & Jackson, 2008;
Aglioti et al., 2008; Farrow & Abernethy, 2003; Weissen-
steiner, Abernethy, Farrow, & Müller, 2008). These studies
have typically used a temporal occlusion paradigm, in
which the presentation of sport actions is interrupted at
diVerent delays from onset. Domain-speciWc motor experts
and naive participants are required to predict the direction
or the correctness of the action after viewing only the initial
body kinematics of the model player or also the visual
consequences of the movements (e.g., ball trajectory).
Research in a variety of diVerent sports shows that motor
experts are more accurate than expert observers (e.g.,
coaches) and naïve participants in predicting the fate of the
observed actions after viewing the initial body movements.
This suggests elite athletes ‘read’ the body kinematics of
the observed actions (Abernethy & Zawi, 2007; Smeeton &
Huys, 2010). Crucially, in a previous study we showed that
the superior predictive abilities of elite basketball players
with respect to naïve and expert observers were associated
to diVerential motor activation during observation of the
early phases of erroneous versus correct shots (Aglioti
et al., 2008). Thus, achieving excellence in sports might be
related, in part, to the Wne-tuning of speciWc anticipatory
‘resonant’ mechanisms that allow for an earlier and more
accurate prediction of the future of others’ actions.
Aims of the present study
In two psychophysics studies, we explored action observa-
tion and prediction in volleyball. Three novel, important
aspects of the issue were investigated. The Wrst concerns
the role of body or context cues in shaping diVerent predic-
tion strategies in motor and visual experts (Abernethy &
123
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
Zawi, 2007; Aglioti et al., 2008). Previous studies on this
issue (Abernethy & Zawi, 2007; Abernethy et al., 2008;
Aglioti et al., 2008; Farrow & Abernethy, 2003; Weissen-
steiner et al., 2008) used temporal occlusion paradigms
where video presentation was interrupted at diVerent
instants after the beginning of the action, showing videos of
increasing length. In these conditions, the presentation of
body- versus ball-related cues was confounded with
increasing viewing time and cumulative presentation of
more information available on the action. Thus, it could not
be established whether the superior perceptual abilities of
motor experts reXected faster processing speed and need of
less information to make a decision or were speciWcally
related to their capacity to read body kinematics. Here we
used a modiWed temporal occlusion paradigm in which vol-
leyball Xoating services were presented. Importantly, only
the body movements or only the ball trajectory were
shown. This procedure allowed us to highlight the comple-
mentary roles of motor and visual expertise on the repre-
sentation of body action and object motion, respectively.
We expected that only motor experts should be able to pre-
dict the outcome of the Xoating service by observing the
initial body movements, while watchers should not show
any advantage as compared to novices. On the other hand,
both athlete and watcher groups are expected to outperform
novices in the perception of the ball trajectory. Indeed, their
previous visual experience with volleyball should allow
athletes and watchers to build more accurate models of the
object motion as compared to that of novices, who can use
only general internal models of the object motion under
1-G gravity conditions to understand the ball trajectory
(Zago & Lacquaniti, 2005).
The second aspect explores whether the congruence
between the spatial perspective of the observer and of the
model (Alaerts, Heremans, Swinnen, & Wenderoth, 2009;
Maeda, Kleiner-Fisman, & Pascual-Leone, 2002; Urgesi,
Candidi, Fabbro, Romani, & Aglioti, 2006b; Christensen,
Ilg, &, Giese 2011, this issue) inXuences action prediction.
To this aim, we tested whether the action knowledge
acquired by doing or watching inXuenced diVerently the
perception of the actions performed by back-facing models
(viewed according to a Wrst person perspective), or by
front-facing models (viewed according to a third-person
perspective). Previous studies have suggested that motor
activation during action observation is higher for actions
viewed from a spatial perspective which is compatible
rather than incompatible with the actor’s perspective (Ala-
erts et al., 2009; Maeda et al., 2002; Urgesi et al., 2006b).
Furthermore, observers are more accurate in perceptual pre-
dictions for videos showing self-produced actions than for
videos showing similar actions produced by other individu-
als (Knoblich & Flach, 2001; Knoblich, Seigerschmidt,
Flach, & Prinz, 2002). In keeping with the notion that
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
observed actions are perceived using internal models of the
sensory consequences of executed actions (Hommel et al.,
2001; Prinz, 1997), these results suggest that action predic-
tion is maximally facilitated for close match between pre-
dicted and actual action outcomes like in the case of actions
that are self-produced or belonging to the observers’ motor
repertoire. Since we assume that the predicted sensory con-
sequences of executed actions match to a greater extent the
back- than the front-facing actions, we expected that the
perceptual advantage of athletes, who may use internal
models of actions established during action execution,
should be maximal for the back-facing action videos. This
eVect should be speciWc for motor experience with body
movements. In contrast, the inXuence of visual experience
on the athletes’ and watchers’ ability to perceive the ball
trajectory should be comparable for back- and front-facing
conditions, because both groups may have learned visual
models of the ball trajectory from Wrst- and third perspec-
tives. Failing to Wnd any speciWc modulation of spatial per-
spective on the prediction abilities of motor experts would
suggest that internal action models are not constrained by
spatial perspective.
Finally, we compared longitudinally the ability of ado-
lescents practicing volleyball to predict the outcome of
domain-speciWc actions before and after a physical, obser-
vational or control training. In experiment 2, comparable
practice periods for the physical and observational training
were given. This allowed us to establish whether the supe-
rior perceptual abilities of athletes are speciWcally related to
motor practice or simply due to their greater visual experi-
ence with domain speciWc actions. Furthermore, to match
the instructions given to the subjects, the same verbal
instructions were given to both execution and observation
groups. Finally, the videos used in the observational train-
ing were focused on both the moving bodies and the ball
motion. This procedure allowed us to avoid that any diVer-
ential perceptual eVects of the physical and observational
training might be ascribed purely to relative attention to the
body or to the ball in the two groups. Overall, our approach
allowed us to explore the speciWc inXuence of motor and
visual experience on the plastic modeling of action predic-
tion abilities.
Experiment 1
Methods
Participants
In experiment 1, we tested three groups of female right-
handed adult individuals (age 27.1, range 18–45 years): 12
volleyball athletes (C or B series) practicing volleyball for a
547
mean of 14.58 § 4.3 years (athletes; mean age = 24.33
years, SD = 5.3); 12 supporters who had never practiced
volleyball but attended continuously to volleyball matches
for at least 10 years (watchers; mean age = 27.5 years,
SD = 8.97); 12 age-matched participants with no experi-
ence with volleyball (novices; mean age = 29.42 years,
SD = 3.5). All participants were right-handed according to
a standard handedness inventory (Briggs & Nebes, 1975),
reported normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity in
both eyes and were naive about the purposes of the experi-
ment. Participants gave their written informed consent and
received information about the experimental hypothesis
only after the experimental tests were completed. The
procedures were approved by the ethics committee of the
ScientiWc Institute (IRCCS) “E. Medea” and were in accor-
dance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of
Helsinki.
Stimuli and task
Two female expert model players (aged 18 and 20 years)
were videotaped while they performed series of volleyball
Xoating services directed to the right or to the left of the
opposite court. The videos were taken from the back (back
view) and from the front (front view) of the shooting
player. The model players were instructed to direct the
shots to the farthest border of the court, thus making more
likely the execution of services in which the ball landed in
(In-shots) or out (Out-shots) the court. For each model and
viewing perspective, we selected 8 In-shots (4 directed to
the left and 4 to the right of the court) and 8 Out-shots
(4 directed to the left and 4 to the right of the court). Thus,
a total of 64 videos were used. Videos were presented in a
modiWed temporal occlusion paradigm (Abernethy & Zawi,
2007; Aglioti et al., 2008). Using the Adobe Premiere soft-
ware (Adobe Systems Incorporated, San Jose, CA), each
video was split into two 1,250-ms clips with respect to the
frame showing the hand-ball contact. Half of the clips
lasted from the beginning of the action to the instant at
which the hand touches the ball, thus showing only the
body kinematics; the other half from the frame showing the
hand-ball contact to the initial falling trajectory of the ball
(when it was approximately at the height of the net), thus
showing only the ball trajectory (Fig. 1). This resulted into
presentation of a total of 128 clips: 2 models £ 2
directions £ 2 In- or Out-shots £ 2 cues £ 8 shot exem-
plars.
Procedure
Each participant was tested in a single experimental session
lasting approximately 45 min. Back-view and front-view
clips were presented in two separate 64-trial blocks and the
123
548
Fig. 1 Examples of the starting snapshots of videos showing back-
and front-facing body kinematics and ball trajectory. Two diVerent
order of the blocks was counterbalanced between subjects.
A short rest was allowed before proceeding to a diVerent
block. The order of trials with In- and Out-shots, left and
right services, and body and ball cues was randomized.
Before proceeding to each experimental block, participants
completed a 5-trial practice block, with random selection of
trials from the diVerent experimental conditions.
Participants sat 57 cm away from a 15-inch monitor (res-
olution, 1,024 £ 768 pixels; refresh frequency, 60 Hz),
where the video stimuli appeared on a black background
and subtended a 22.5° £ 15° region. Stimulus-presentation
timing, randomization, and data recording were controlled
by using E-prime V1.2 software (Psychology Software
Tools Inc., Pittsburgh, PA) running on a laptop computer.
Movie presentation was obtained by presenting 25 snap-
shots at a 20 Hz rate for a total of 1,250 ms for each stimu-
lus clip.
A trial started with the presentation of a central 3° £ 3°
Wxation cross lasting 500 ms, which was followed by the
presentation of the stimulus clip at the centre of the moni-
tor. At the end of clip presentation a prompt frame was pre-
sented requesting the participants to press, respectively
with the left or the right index Wnger, the left or the right
button of the computer track pad to decide whether the shot
was in or out of the Weld. Association between in- or out-
responses and left or right button presses was counterbal-
123
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
models are shown in the two perspectives. The depicted exemplars are
taken from In shots
anced between participants. Participants were instructed to
be as accurate and fast as possible. Response accuracy and
the time taken to respond from the onset of the prompt
frame (latency) were recorded and analyzed.
Data analysis
We calculated the percentage of correct responses (accu-
racy) and the mean latency of each participant in each
experimental condition (32 trials per cell). Individual accu-
racy and mean latency values were entered into two sepa-
rate mixed model ANOVAs with group (athletes, watchers,
novices) as between-subjects variable and viewing perspec-
tive (back, front) and cue (body, ball) as within-subjects
variables. All pair-wise comparisons were performed using
the Duncan post-hoc test. A signiWcance threshold of
P < 0.05 was set for all statistical analyses. Data are
reported as mean § standard error of the mean (SEM).
Results
Accuracy
The ANOVA on accuracy (Fig. 2a) revealed signiWcant
main eVect of group (F2,33 = 18.95, P < 0.001, p2 = 0.534),
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
Fig. 2 Results of experiment 1. The graphs show the mean accuracy
(a) and latency (b) of adult athletes, expert watchers and novices in
predicting the fate of volleyball Xoating services viewed from the
with athletes (72.23%) performing better than watchers
(60.58%; P < 0.001) and novices (56.33%; P < 0.001), who
in turn had comparable performance (P = 0.122). The
eVects of viewing perspective (F1,33 = 4.76, P = 0.036,
p2 = 0.126), cue (F1,33 = 19.8, P < 0.001, p2 = 0.375) and
their two-way interaction (F1,33 = 7.07, P = 0.012,
p2 = 0.176) were also signiWcant. Performance was better
for ball than for body cue clips when they were taken from
the back- (70.06 vs. 59.67%; P < 0.001) but not when they
were taken from the front-view perspective (62.58 vs.
59.89%; P = 0.197). Furthermore, participants were more
accurate for the back- than for the front-view perspective
when clips showed the ball trajectory (P = 0.001), but not
when clips showed the body movements (P = 0.914). The
cue £ group (F2,33 < 1, p2 = 0.025) and the viewing
perspective £ group interactions (F2,33 = 2.259, P = 0.132,
p2 = 0.116) were non-signiWcant. Crucially, however, a
signiWcant three-way interaction was found (F2,33 = 5.35,
P = 0.01, p2 = 0.245). Pair-wise post-hoc tests revealed
better performance in perceiving the ball trajectory in the
back-view perspective as compared to the other conditions
for athletes (all Ps < 0.003) and watchers (all Ps < 0.004),
but not for novices (all Ps > 0.35). Furthermore, athletes
549
back- (left panels) or front-facing (right-panels) perspectives. Error
bars indicate standard errors. Asterisks indicate signiWcant between-
group diVerences in the diVerent experimental conditions
outperformed novices in all conditions (all Ps < 0.04). In
contrast, watchers outperformed novices only in under-
standing the ball trajectory in the back- (P = 0.007), but not
in the front-view clips (P = 0.383). The performance of
watchers and novices was comparable for the predictions
based on body kinematics, independently from the viewing
perspective (both Ps > 0.26). Better performance of athletes
as compared to watchers was observed for predictions
based on reading the kinematics of the model’s body when
viewed from the back (P = 0.01) but not when viewed from
the front (P = 0.112). On the other hand, athletes were bet-
ter than watchers in predicting the ball trajectory in both
viewing perspectives (both Ps < 0.029).
Latencies
The ANOVA on latencies (Fig. 2b) revealed a signiWcant
main eVect of group (F2,33 = 8, P = 0.001, p2 = 0.326),
with novices (2,437.59 ms) being overall slower than ath-
letes (1,764.03 ms; P < 0.001) and watchers (2,072.91 ms,
P = 0.038), while the diVerence between athletes and
watchers did not reach signiWcance (P = 0.076). The eVects of
viewing perspective (F1,33 = 13.54, P = 0.001, p2 = 0.291),
123
550
cue (F1,33 = 395.85, P < 0.001, p2 = 0.923) and their
interaction (F1,33 = 17.75, P < 0.001, p2 = 0.35) were also
signiWcant. Post-hoc tests showed that ball cue clips were
responded to faster than body cue clips in both back-
(1,834.07 ms vs. 2,486.66 ms; P < 0.001) and front-view
perspectives (1,593.69 ms vs. 2,451.61 ms; P < 0.001).
However, participants were faster for the front- than back-
view perspective when clips showed the ball trajectory
(P < 0.001), but not when videos showed the body move-
ments (P = 0.317). The eVects of cue and viewing perspec-
tive on latencies were comparable for the three groups,
since non-signiWcant two- or three-way interaction with
group was obtained (in all cases, F2,33 < 2.1, P > 0.14,
p2 < 0.12).
Discussion
In experiment 1 we compared the action prediction abilities
of adult athletes, who had both motor and visual expertise,
watchers, who had only visual expertise, and novices, who
had no experience with the observed actions. Stimuli
showed the body movement or the ball trajectory phases of
volleyball Xoating services viewed from the back or from
the front. This allowed the manipulation of the recognition
cue and of the correspondence between the model player’s
and the observer’s viewing perspectives. The results
showed that athletes outperformed novices in predicting the
outcome of actions on the basis of body kinematics and ball
trajectory, independently from the viewing perspective. It is
worth noting that watchers outperformed novices only in
predictions based on the ball trajectory when videos were
taken from the back-view perspective.
Back- and front-view videos diVered in the possibility to
see the last part of the ball trajectory, which was partially
hidden in the front-view perspective. This inXuenced the
performance of athletes and watchers in predicting the fate
of the shots on the basis of the ball trajectory, with less
accurate and faster responses to front- than to back-view
ball trajectory clips. The trade-oV between accuracy and
latency for front- as compared to back-view videos might
reXect a change of the response criterion due to the absence
of relevant information from the last part of the videos.
Since the two perspectives were presented in a blocked
design, in the absence of important information from the
last part of front-ball videos participants might have ana-
lyzed only the initial part and planned earlier a response to
be provided after the appearance of the prompt frame. Cru-
cially, this strategic use of the visual information to adjust
the velocity of response was non-speciWc for the level of
motor and/or visual expertise, since all the three groups of
participants showed similar eVects on response latencies. In
contrast, their ability to use appropriately the information
123
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
provided by initial and last part of the ball trajectory reX-
ected speciWc visual or motor expertise. Both athletes and
watchers were most accurate when they predicted the fate
of the shots on the basis of the ball trajectory viewed from
the back, while novices were similarly inaccurate in under-
standing back- and front-viewed ball trajectories. Further-
more, although, athletes were better than novices and
watchers in understanding the ball trajectory in both
perspectives, watchers outperformed novices only in the
back-view perspective. This would suggest that the visual
experience gained by watchers improved only their ability
to use the last part of the ball trajectory, when the ball was
falling down to the Xoor. In contrast, athletes could use also
the initial part of the ball trajectory which was visible in
both the back- and front-view videos.
In contrast to the strong eVect of the viewing perspective
on the ability to understand the ball trajectory, responses
based on reading the body kinematics were not aVected by
the viewing perspective in any group. Importantly, how-
ever, while athletes outperformed watchers in understand-
ing the ball trajectory of videos taken from both back- and
front-viewing perspectives, they were better than watchers
in reading the body kinematics only for videos taken from
the back-view perspective, which was compatible with the
Wrst-person experience of the observed actions. This would
suggest that motor experience with actions played a major
role in determining the superior perceptual abilities of ath-
letes. Thus, the results of experiment 1 are in keeping and
further corroborate previous studies (Abernethy & Zawi,
2007; Abernethy et al., 2008; Aglioti et al., 2008; Farrow &
Abernethy, 2003; Weissensteiner et al., 2008) showing that
expert athletes, but not expert watchers, are equipped with
fast and generally accurate perceptual mechanisms. These
mechanisms allow experts to read the kinematics of others’
body movements and the initial phases of the resulting
object motion in order to anticipate the future course of
observed actions ahead of realization. Importantly, rather
than presenting videos of increasing length as in the typical
temporal occlusion paradigm used in previous studies
(Abernethy & Zawi, 2007; Abernethy et al., 2008; Aglioti
et al., 2008; Farrow & Abernethy, 2003; Weissensteiner
et al., 2008), we presented clips with a Wxed duration and
showing only the body kinematics or only the ball trajec-
tory. This allowed us to relate the superior perceptual abili-
ties of athletes to their use of body movement information.
However, athletes outperformed watchers also in under-
standing the ball trajectory and not only in reading the body
movements. This last result is in keeping with our previous
study (Aglioti et al., 2008) with basketball players, who
provided better predictions than watchers when videos
showed only the initial body movements as well as when
they showed the initial body movements and the ball trajec-
tory. While the pattern of results of the above study could
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
be ascribed to the combination of body and object cues in
longer videos, the present results show that experts are bet-
ter than watchers also in perceiving the ball trajectory pre-
sented in isolation. This suggests an overall better
performance of motor experts also in the visual representa-
tion of the ball trajectory.
The diVerence between expert athletes and watchers may
reXect either the greater extent of athletes’ visual experi-
ence with volleyball actions, which was higher than that of
supporters, or the additive combination of visual and motor
experience allowing a better description of movements and
their visual consequences. Comparing diVerent groups of
individuals with acquired domain speciWc expertise,
indeed, allows testing the eVect of extensive practice peri-
ods, which can be hardly used in longitudinal studies, but
prevents to clearly disentangle the speciWc roles of motor
and visual experience in action perception. Furthermore,
studies based on comparison of diVerent groups do not take
into account the possible preexisting interindividual diVer-
ences that may have determined the superior abilities of
athletes in sport as compared to novices or watchers. To
clarify the speciWc roles of motor and visual expertise on
the Wne tuning of anticipatory perceptual abilities, in exper-
iment 2 we adopted a longitudinal approach comparing the
perceptual abilities of adolescents practicing volleyball
before and after a physical or a observational training about
the Xoating services in volleyball.
Experiment 2
Methods
Participants
We recruited from a local volleyball sport club 45 (41
females) right-handed children aged 10–14 years (mean
age = 11.96 years, range 10–14 years) with no previous for-
mal training on volleyball Xoating service. All participants
were right-handed according to a standard handedness
inventory (Briggs & Nebes, 1975), reported normal or cor-
rected-to-normal visual acuity in both eyes and were naive
about the purposes of the experiment. Participants gave
their informed consent and their parents gave written
informed consent for participation in the research. Detailed
information on the phases and procedures of the study were
provided at the time of recruitment, but participants and
their parents received information about the experimental
hypothesis only after the study phases were completed. The
procedures were approved by the ethics committee of the
ScientiWc Institute (IRCCS) “E. Medea” and were in accor-
dance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Declaration of
Helsinki.
551
Group allocation procedure
Participants were pseudorandomly allocated to three train-
ing groups using a matching procedure based on their per-
formance in a preliminary Xoating service execution test.
This ensured comparable baseline levels in action execu-
tion abilities. In a preliminary session, participants were
administered a Xoating service execution test. Placed in a
central position behind the bottom line of the volleyball
court (9 m from the net), participants performed 32 Xoating
services to the opposite court. According to a pseudoran-
dom sequence determined by the examiner, 16 services
should be directed to the left (zone 1) and 16 services to the
right (zone 5) of the opposite court. The net height was set
at 224 cm. Each service received a 3-point score: 0, wrong
service; 1, service in court but in the wrong zone; 2, service
in court in the correct zone. Participants were divided into
three groups on the basis of their total precision score in the
test (mean = 11.31, SD = 14.41): low (precision scores: 0;
N = 19), intermediate (precision scores: 1–17; N = 13), and
high performers (precision scores: 18–45; N = 13). Partici-
pants from each of three performance groups were ran-
domly selected and allocated sequentially to the three
training groups: execution (N = 15, 13 females; mean
age = 12.13 years, SD = 1.36), observation (N = 15, 14
females; mean age = 12 years, SD = 1.07), control (N = 15,
14 females; mean age = 11.73 years, SD = 1.1). This
ensured a comparable presence of high, intermediate and
lower performers in the three training groups, with a resulting
comparable baseline execution performance (F2,42 = 1.42,
P = 0.252).
Training procedure
After the initial testing session, twelve 2-h training sessions
were administered to each group, with a frequency of
4 days per week for 3 weeks. Each training session con-
sisted of a common training (90 min) and a diVerentiated
training (30 min). During the common training, the individ-
uals of all groups participated together to a standard volley-
ball training with no practice or reference to Xoating
services. The common training was aimed at allowing par-
ticipants to continue regularly their volleyball practice in a
controlled setting that matched the general experience of
the three groups with volleyball actions. During the diVer-
entiated training, each group received separately a speciWc
intervention. The execution group was involved in a tradi-
tional training requiring the repeated performance of Xoat-
ing services after presentation of a model and following a
series of instructions on how to perform the Xoating ser-
vice. The observation group was involved in an observa-
tional training in which participants watched videos of
Xoating services and heard the same instructions provided
123
552
to the execution group. The control group watched videos
of volleyball defense actions in which the Xoating services
were cut out and heard instructions on the volleyball
actions.
The videos for the observational and control training
were created for this experimental research and focused on
the technical movements and game of volleyball. They had
a total duration of 30 min and showed a series of action
scenes that were presented at natural speed or slowed down
by 25% to improve understanding of the action dynamics.
The videos showed two expert female athletes as technical
models taken from the front or from the back-viewing per-
spective. The video on the Xoating service in volleyball that
was presented to the observation group reproduced the
whole or a partial dynamic of diVerent Xoating services,
with 360-grade shots. The video allowed the observer to
understand the key elements of the service technique. The
visual presentation of the actions was accompanied by ver-
bal descriptions explaining the appropriate movements. The
same verbal descriptions were given to the observation and
execution groups. The video on the defense in volleyball
that was presented to the control group showed defense
game actions, with the service phase being hidden from
view. Also in this video, the visual presentation of the
defense actions was accompanied by verbal descriptions
explaining the appropriate movements.
Stimuli and task
The eVects of the three types of interventions were evalu-
ated by administering before (Pre) and after (Post) training,
the same task and stimuli used in experiment 1. Pre- and
post-training evaluations were conducted at an interval of at
least 1 month.
Data analysis
We calculated the percentage of correct responses (accu-
racy) and the mean latency of each participant in each
experimental condition. Individual accuracy and mean
latency values were entered into two separate mixed model
ANOVA with group (execution, observation, control) as
between-subjects variable and viewing perspective (back,
front), cue (body, ball), and session (pre, post) as within-
subjects variable. A signiWcant four-way interaction was
further explored by means of two separate group £
cue £ session mixed-model ANOVAs, conducted sepa-
rately for the back- and front-view conditions. All pair-wise
comparisons were performed using the Duncan post-hoc
test. A signiWcant threshold of P < 0.05 was set for all sta-
tistical analyses. Data are reported as mean § standard
error of the mean (SEM).
123
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
Results
Accuracy
The four-way ANOVA on accuracy revealed a signiWcant
four-way interaction between group, viewing perspective,
cue, and session (F2,42 = 3.29, P = 0.047, p2 = 0.136). The
follow-up three-way ANOVA for the back-view condition
(Fig. 3a) revealed a signiWcant main eVect of cue
(F1,42 = 30.04, P < 0.001, p2 = 0.417), with better perfor-
mance for ball (75%) than body videos (64.33%). No other
main eVects or two-way interactions were signiWcant (all
Fs < 2.73, Ps > 0.07, p2s < 0.12). Crucially a signiWcant
three-way interaction was obtained for the back-view con-
dition (F2,42 = 5.5, P = 0.008, p2 = 0.207). Duncan post-
hoc test showed that, after the training, the performance of
the execution group improved in predicting the fate of the
shots on the basis of body kinematics (62.5 § 3.24% vs.
68.54 § 2.9%; P = 0.041), but not on the basis of the ball
trajectory (74.79 § 3.74% vs. 75.63 § 3.62%; P = 0.754).
In contrast, the observation group improved in predic-
tions based on the ball trajectory (71.83 § 3.15% vs.
80.67 § 2.74%; P = 0.004), but not on the body kinemat-
ics (65.83 § 2.72% vs. 62.46 § 3.25%; P = 0.253). No
change was, instead, observed for the control group in
reading body kinematics (65 § 3.81% vs. 61.67 § 3.91%;
P = 0.259) or in understanding the ball trajectory
(74.38 § 4.85% vs. 72.71 § 5.22%; P = 0.532). The fol-
low-up three-way ANOVA for the front-view condition
(Fig. 4a) revealed non-signiWcant main eVects (all
Fs < 3.8, Ps > 0.05, p2s < 0.09) or interactions (all
Fs2,42 < 1).
Latencies
The four-way ANOVA on response latencies (Figs. 3b, 4b)
showed signiWcant eVects of viewing perspective
(F1,42 = 19.25, P < 0.001, p2 = 0.314), cue (F1,42 = 542.94,
P < 0.001, p2 = 0.928) and of their interaction
(F1,42 = 30.48, P < 0.001, p2 = 0.421). In contrast, the
other main eVects and two-, three-, and four-way interac-
tions did not reach signiWcance (all Fs < 3.38, Ps > 0.07,
p2s < 0.08). Participants were faster in predicting the fate
of the shots by understanding the ball trajectory than by
reading the body kinematics when videos where taken from
the back- (1,882.25 ms vs. 2,360.88 ms; P < 0.001) and
front-view perspectives (1,663.95 ms vs. 2,286.12 ms;
P < 0.001). Furthermore, participants were faster for the
front- than for the back-view perspective, independently
from cue (both Ps < 0.001), but the eVect of perspective
was stronger for understanding the ball trajectory than for
reading body kinematics.
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
Fig. 3 Results of experiment 2 relative to the back-view stimuli. The
graphs show the mean accuracy (a) and latency (b) in predicting the
fate of volleyball Xoating services viewed from the back-view perspec-
tive before and after the execution, observation and control trainings.
Discussion
In experiment 2 we performed a psychophysics investiga-
tion of sport-speciWc action prediction abilities in adoles-
cents before and after the acquisition of perceptual and
motor skills related to volleyball. We found a double disso-
ciation between physical versus observational practice and
improvements in predicting the fate of observed actions on
the basis of body kinematics versus ball trajectory. This
double dissociation rules out that the spurious eVects of
task diYculty and training complexity might explain the
selectivity of the eVects of the two training procedures on
the two tasks. Improvements in accuracy were not accom-
panied by changes in latency of responses, thus ruling out
speed-accuracy trade-oV eVects. Furthermore, the eVects of
the training were speciWc for the back view condition. That
no speciWc change was obtained in the front-view condition
may be due to the fact that the ball was not fully visible
when the videos were recorded from a front-view perspec-
tive and thus the observation group could not use their
improved abilities in understanding the ball trajectory. This
553
Error bars indicate standard errors. Asterisks indicate signiWcant
between-sessions and between-cues diVerences in the diVerent experi-
mental groups
corresponds to the pattern of performance of adult expert
watchers tested in experiment 1, who were better than nov-
ices in understanding the ball trajectory shown from back-,
but not from front-view perspective. Furthermore, the
motor experience of the execution group may have not been
eVective in allowing a better understanding of the model’s
body movements when viewed from the front-view, third-
person perspective. Indeed, even after several years of
practice, adult athletes tested in experiment 1 did not out-
perform watchers in reading the body kinematics when the
model’s body was viewed from the front. Importantly, the
improvement of the execution group was selective for pre-
dicting the fate of others’ actions by reading their body
movements, and did not extend to the performance in
understanding the ball trajectory, which was improved only
after observational practice. Thus, the results of experiment
2 allowed us to better clarify the results of experiment 1 on
adult athletes, who were better than novices in perceiving
the body kinematics and ball trajectory. Indeed, since ath-
letes had a greater motor and visual expertise with volley-
ball actions as compared to novices and also to expert
123
554
Fig. 4 Results of experiment 2 relative to the front-view stimuli. The
graphs show the mean accuracy (a) and latency (b) in predicting the
fate of volleyball Xoating services viewed from the front-view perspec-
watchers, we can attribute their higher body movement per-
ception abilities to their motor experience, and their higher
ball trajectory perception abilities to their visual experi-
ence. In contrast, expert watchers could use only their
visual experience to understand the ball trajectory, but not
the body kinematics. Importantly, it is unlikely that the
eVects of experiment 2 might be simply ascribed to the
diVerential attention to body or to ball cues paid during the
training by the participants of the execution and observa-
tion groups. Indeed, while in natural learning contexts one
cannot control for which aspects of the performance are
attended to by players and observers, in experiment 2 we
controlled for the type of information presented to the
observation group participants. It is worth noting that the
observation training videos directed the participants’ atten-
tion to body movements as well as to their consequences on
the ball trajectory. Furthermore, all the participants were
motivated to learn to perform the volleyball Xoating service
and likely attended to the demonstrations of its accurate
body kinematics. We cannot rule out that attentional factors
may play a role in building the diVerent perceptual abilities
of athletes and watchers. However, our experimental
123
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
tive before and after the execution, observation and control trainings.
Error bars indicate standard errors. Asterisks indicate signiWcant
between-cues diVerences in the diVerent experimental groups
manipulation of the type of training in experiment 2 makes
unlikely that diVerential attentional deployment in execu-
tion and observation training may inXuence action predic-
tion abilities. Future studies, using for example eye
movement recording, are needed to explore systematically
the type of information used by execution and observation
trainees during action demonstrations.
General discussion
Several studies indicate that action perception and execu-
tion rely upon largely overlapping cognitive systems
(Hommel et al., 2001; Prinz, 1997) and neural substrates
(Grafton, 2009; Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004). It is less
clear, however, how shared representations of action execu-
tion and perception develop and whether visual and motor
experiences are equivalent in their ability to establish novel
perceptuo-motor representations of actions.
In the present study we aimed to investigate the diVeren-
tial contribution exerted by motor and visual experience to
the development of the experts’ abilities to predict the
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
outcome of the actions of other individuals. Results showed
that learning ‘by observation’ may foster visual representa-
tions of actions that are used to describe and understand the
visual dynamics of the actions and of the related contexts
(e.g., the ball trajectory). In contrast, learning ‘by doing’
may allow for motor, simulative representations of actions
that are used to predict and anticipate the future behaviors
of other individuals by reading their body kinematics
(Schütz-Bosbach & Prinz, 2007; Urgesi et al., 2010; Wilson
& Knoblich, 2005).
The use of these simulative representations in the predic-
tion of others’ action, however, might be constrained by the
spatial correspondence between executed and observed
actions. We found that both the improvements of the execu-
tion training group on body action prediction and the
improvements of the observation training group on ball
trajectory understanding were limited to the back-view
perspective. No Wrm conclusion on the role of spatial per-
spective can be drawn from these results, because the
absence of any eVects of visual expertise on object motion
perception in the front-facing perspective might be due
to fact the last part of the ball trajectory was missing.
However, a similar account cannot fully explain why long-
(experiment 1) and short-term (experiment 2) motor exper-
tise aVected reading the kinematics of body movements
only when viewed from the back-view perspective (likely
linked to Wrst-person experience of the observed actions).
This might suggest that the compatibility between the
action representation established during physical practice
and the visual percept may inXuence the action prediction
abilities of athletes. These results are in keeping with stud-
ies showing higher mirror motor facilitation for actions
viewed from a spatial perspective which is compatible
rather than incompatible with the actor’s perspective (Ala-
erts et al., 2009; Maeda et al., 2002; Urgesi et al., 2006b)
and a better perceptual prediction performance for one’s
own than others’ actions (Knoblich & Flach, 2001; Knob-
lich et al., 2002). These studies suggest a more accurate and
rapid activation of internal, simulative models when
observing actions that match closer the predicted sensorial
consequences of executed actions. Accordingly, the visual
appearance of a back-facing, but not of a front-facing, mov-
ing body may match directly the internal motor representa-
tions of actions established during physical training, thus
explaining the superior performance of motor experts as
compared to visual experts and novices in predicting the
outcome of back-facing, but not front-facing, actions on the
basis of the initial body movements.
The exclusive eVect of physical as compared to observa-
tional practice on the development of predictive action per-
ception abilities would suggest that establishing simulative
action representations requires the association between
action execution and observation. This is in keeping with
555
the associative sequence learning hypothesis on the devel-
opment of mirror neuron system (Catmur, Walsh, & Heyes,
2009; Heyes, 2010), which claims that perceptuo-motor
representations of actions emerge from a sensorimotor
learning process. Indeed, planning and execution of actions
is contingently (Cook et al., 2010) and contiguously (Key-
sers & Perrett, 2004) associated with the perception of the
sensory (kinesthetic and visual) consequences of move-
ments in the actor’s body and/or of the sensory (visual) sig-
nals coming from the body of other individuals performing
similar actions in imitative settings. Evidence favoring an
associative sequence learning account of mirror neuron sys-
tem development derives from behavioural (Heyes et al.,
2005), TMS (Catmur, Walsh, & Heyes, 2007) and neuroim-
aging (Catmur, Gillmeister, Bird, Liepelt, Brass, & Heyes,
2008) studies showing a reversal of the typical somatotopic
mirror motor activation after repeated exposure to incon-
gruent associations of movement execution and action
observation (e.g., doing a index Wnger movement while see-
ing a little Wnger movement). Learning sensorimotor con-
tingencies seems not to be constrained by the biological
plausibility of the visual stimulus, since mirror motor facil-
itation may occur also during observation of a symbolic cue
which has been contingently associated with action execu-
tion (Petroni, Baguear, & Della-Maggiore, 2010). Impor-
tantly, repeated exposure to contingent associations
between an observed action and an informative symbolic
cue did not inXuence mirror motor facilitation (Petroni
et al., 2010), thus suggesting that visuo-motor rather than
visuo-visual associations are required to shape mirror neu-
ron system activation. The results of the present study are
in keeping with the necessity of experiencing contingent
sensorimotor associations to forge novel perceptuo-motor
representations of actions, but suggest that these action rep-
resentations allow to predict the future states of others’
behaviors (Press, Heyes, & Kilner, 2011).
While the present data show that direct physical practice
is required to establish novel simulative action representa-
tions that can be used to predict others’ actions, they do not
elucidate which speciWc aspect of physical as compared to
observational practice was critical. Action execution and
observation diVer for many aspects, including motor plan-
ning and prediction of the sensory consequences of move-
ments, muscle contractions, kinesthetic perception of the
moving body parts and sensorimotor contingencies. Action
recognition is improved by repeated action execution in the
absence of any visual feedback (Casile & Giese, 2006;
Hecht et al., 2001) and even in the absence of any voluntary
action planning as during passive movements (Hecht et al.,
2001). These results would suggest that the contextual per-
ception of the visual feedback of the movement or active
motor planning are not necessary to reinforce or establish
new perceptuo-motor representation of actions while
123
556
aVerent kinaesthetic signals may be suYcient. On the other
hand, while no after-eVects have been found after watching
visuo-motor adaptations to perturbed environments (Ong &
Hodges, 2010), they were still present after direct experi-
ence of visuo-motor adaptation in a deaVerented patient
(Bernier, Chua, Bard, & Franks, 2006). This would suggest
that the eVerent copies of the anticipated sensory conse-
quences of the movements, which might be easily predicted
during active and passive movement execution (Hecht
et al., 2001) but are absent during action observation, are
required to update the internal sensorimotor model of the
action (Ong & Hodges, 2010) that is used to predict the
future states of others’ behavior (Hommel et al., 2001;
Kilner, Friston, & Frith, 2007; Wilson & Knoblich, 2005).
The absence of a signiWcant eVect of the physical train-
ing on reading the body kinematics of front-facing action
videos might attenuate the importance of the execution
training for the perception of the actions performed by
opponent players, who are typically viewed in volleyball
from a front-facing perspective. It should be noted, how-
ever, that the elite athletes, but not the watchers, tested in
experiment 1 outperformed novices in body-based predic-
tions of the outcome of actions viewed from both back- and
front-facing perspectives. This is in keeping with previous
studies showing improved perception abilities of motor
experts as compared to novices for actions viewed from the
front (e.g., Sebanz & ShiVrar, 2009). The suggestion is
made that coupling motor and visual experience for periods
of time longer than those used in this study may increase
the Xexibility of internal action models and thus allow to
incorporate also indirect associations between executed and
observed actions. In this vein, the predicted sensory conse-
quences of executed actions may be coupled even with
kinematics of actions viewed from a third-person perspec-
tive. Furthermore, it is worth noting that our task was
purely perceptual, in that it did not require a motor inter-
ceptive reaction with the ball shot but only a perceptual
judgment. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that diVerent
task settings, involving interceptive reactions in competi-
tive games, might reveal a greater sensitivity to body cues
while athletes are front-faced with opponent players’
actions (Farrow & Abernethy, 2003; Streuber, Knoblich,
Sebanz, BülthoV, & de la Rosa, 2011).
That action observation practice alone did not have any
eVect on the ability to read the body kinematics of the
model players does not imply that observational practice is
ineVective for action perception. Indeed, we showed that
the participants of the observation, but not of the execution
training group in experiment 2 increased their accuracy in
understanding the ball trajectory, suggesting that observing
others interacting with objects is required to build a model
of the dynamics of the object motion in the environment
that can be used to anticipate its future course. These visual
123
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
models of object motion may be particularly important both
when the body is hidden from view and when it provides
ambiguous or even deceptive cues. Indeed, the visual repre-
sentation of object motion (e.g., the ball trajectory) may
add to performance when the body kinematics is not suY-
cient for a reliable prediction of the action outcome and
when performance is not heavily time constrained. On the
other hand, in sport, as in any competitive social settings,
the opponent actors try to disguise or deceive the other
players, thus minimizing the information available to the
observer or providing misleading information that makes
observers error prone (Jackson, Warren, & Abernethy,
2006). Although motor experts seem to have acquired the
capability to detect the incongruence and the exaggerations
of the body kinematics that arise from the attempt to pro-
vide deceptive information (Jackson et al., 2006; Sebanz &
ShiVrar, 2009; Cañal-Bruland, van der Kamp, & van Kest-
eren, 2010), highly competitive situations might impel fast
and likely wrong responses to others’ moves based on
deceptive body movements. Indeed, a greater sensitivity of
motor experts to opponents’ body deceptive movements
has been found among expert French boxers, who had more
false alarms in responding to feints than intermediate and
novice players (Ripoll, Kerlirzin, Stein, & Reine, 1995).
Thus, in certain situations, such us a boxer reacting to an
opponent’s stroke (Ripoll et al., 1995) or a goalkeeper try-
ing to intercept a penalty kick (Dessing & Craig, 2010), it is
crucial to rely on the processing of the object motion rather
than on the possibly disguising or misleading body move-
ments of the opponent player. Our data suggest that obser-
vational practice is required for the ability to understand the
ball trajectory independently from body kinematics.
Research on motor skill acquisition showed that physical
and observational practice may improve action execution at
qualitatively diVerent levels (Shea et al., 2000). In particu-
lar, observational practice might allow to develop a repre-
sentation of the visuo-spatial coordinates of the action but
not of its speciWc motor codes, in terms of joint angles and
activation patterns (Gruetzmacher et al., 2011), which
require direct motor experience. In keeping with a hierar-
chical model of human action understanding (Grafton &
Hamilton, 2007), actions may be represented at diVerent
levels of increasing abstraction, from action kinematics to
the action goals or intentions, which may be underpinned
by diVerent sectors of the fronto-parietal action observation
network. Importantly, accessing the speciWc motor codes
based on body kinematics read-out might be important for
predicting the future states of others’ actions. However, we
cannot exclude that accessing the representation of the
visuo-spatial pattern of the action (acquired via observa-
tional practice) may help to understand more complex
aspects of others’ actions like for example their goals or
intentions.
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
In conclusion, physical and observational practice might
provide complementary and mutually reinforcing contribu-
tions to the superior perceptual abilities of elite athletes.
This would prompt for the use of diVerent learning strate-
gies and of diVerent perceptual cues in motor training pro-
cedures aimed at optimizing physical and perceptual sport
performance.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by grants from Istituto
Italiano di Tecnologia SEED 2009 (Prot. n. 21538) and from the Min-
istero Istruzione Università e Ricerca (Progetti di Ricerca di Interesse
Nazionale, PRIN 2009; Prot. n. 2009A8FR3Z) to C.U. and S.M.A and
from Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere ScientiWco ‘‘E. Medea’’
(Ricerca Corrente 2009, Ministero della Salute) to C.U. We thank Dr.
Claudia Lopes for her help in data collection.
References
Abernethy, B., & Zawi, K. (2007). Pickup of essential kinematics
underpins expert perception of movement patterns. Journal of
Motor Behavior, 39(5), 353–367.
Abernethy, B., Zawi, K., & Jackson, R. C. (2008). Expertise and
attunement to kinematic constraints. Perception, 37(6), 931–
948.
Aglioti, S. M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., & Urgesi, C. (2008). Action
anticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Na-
ture Neuroscience, 11(9), 1109–1116.
Alaerts, K., Heremans, E., Swinnen, S. P., & Wenderoth, N. (2009).
How are observed actions mapped to the observer’s motor sys-
tem? InXuence of posture and perspective. Neuropsychologia,
47(2), 415–422.
Ashford, D., Bennett, S. J., & Davids, K. (2006). Observational mod-
eling eVects for movement dynamics and movement outcome
measures across diVering task constraints: a meta-analysis. Jour-
nal of Motor Behavior, 38(3), 185–205.
Avenanti, A., & Urgesi, C. (2011). Understanding ‘what’ others do:
mirror mechanisms play a crucial role in action perception. Social
Cognitive and AVective Neuroscience, 6(3), 257–259.
Baker, C. I., Keysers, C., Jellema, T., Wicker, B., & Perrett, D. I.
(2001). Neuronal representation of disappearing and hidden ob-
jects in temporal cortex of the macaque. Experimental Brain Re-
search, 140(3), 375–381.
Barraclough, N. E., Xiao, D., Oram, M. W., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). The
sensitivity of primate STS neurons to walking sequences and to
the degree of articulation in static images. Progress in Brain Re-
search, 154, 135–148.
Bernier, P., Chua, R., Bard, C., & Franks, I. M. (2006). Updating of an
internal model without proprioception: a deaVerentation study.
Neuroreport, 17(13), 1421–1425.
Boutin, A., Fries, U., Panzer, S., Shea, C. H., & Blandin, Y. (2010).
Role of action observation and action in sequence learning and
coding. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 240–251.
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Com-
patibility between observed and executed Wnger movements:
comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cog-
nition, 44(2), 124–143.
Briggs, G. G., & Nebes, R. D. (1975). Patterns of hand preference in a
student population. Cortex, 11(3), 230–238.
Brown, L. E., Wilson, E. T., & Gribble, P. L. (2009). Repetitive trans-
cranial magnetic stimulation to the primary motor cortex inter-
feres with motor learning by observing. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 21(5), 1013–1022.
557
Buchanan, J. J., & Wright, D. L. (2011). Generalization of action
knowledge following observational learning. Acta Psychologica,
136(1), 167–178.
Calvo-Merino, B., Glaser, D. E., Grèzes, J., Passingham, R. E., & Hag-
gard, P. (2005). Action observation and acquired motor skills: an
FMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15(8), 1243–
1249.
Calvo-Merino, B., Grèzes, J., Glaser, D. E., Passingham, R. E., & Hag-
gard, P. (2006). Seeing or doing? InXuence of visual and motor
familiarity in action observation. Current Biology, 16(19), 1905–
1910.
Calvo-Merino, B., Urgesi, C., Orgs, G., Aglioti, S. M., & Haggard, P.
(2010). Extrastriate body area underlies aesthetic evaluation of
body stimuli. Experimental Brain Research, 204(3), 447–456.
Cañal-Bruland, R., van der Kamp, J., & van Kesteren, J. (2010). An
examination of motor and perceptual contributions to the recogni-
tion of deception from others’ actions. Human Movement Science,
29(1), 94–102.
Candidi, M., Urgesi, C., Ionta, S., & Aglioti, S. M. (2008). Virtual le-
sion of ventral premotor cortex impairs visual perception of bio-
mechanically possible but not impossible actions. Social
Neuroscience, 3(3–4), 388–400.
Carrozzo, M., Moscatelli, A., & Lacquaniti, F. (2010). Tempo rubato:
animacy speeds up time in the brain. PLoS One, 5(12), e15638.
Casile, A., & Giese, M. A. (2006). Nonvisual motor training inXuences
biological motion perception. Current Biology, 16(1), 69–74.
Catmur, C., Gillmeister, H., Bird, G., Liepelt, R., Brass, M. & Heyes,
C. (2008). Through the looking glass: counter-mirror activation
following incompatible sensorimotor learning. The European
Journal of Neuroscience, 28(6), 1208–1215.
Catmur, C., Walsh, V., & Heyes, C. (2007). Sensorimotor learning
conWgures the human mirror system. Current Biology, 17(17),
1527–1531.
Catmur, C., Walsh, V., & Heyes, C. (2009). Associative sequence
learning: the role of experience in the development of imitation
and the mirror system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series B Biological Sciences, 364(1528),
2369–2380.
Cattaneo, L., Barchiesi, G., Tabarelli, D., Arfeller, C., Sato, M., &
Glenberg, A. M. (2010). One’s motor performance predictably
modulates the understanding of others’ actions through adapta-
tion of premotor visuo-motor neurons. Social Cognitive and
AVective Neuroscience, 6(3), 301–310.
Censor, N., & Cohen, L. G. (2011). Using repetitive transcranial mag-
netic stimulation to study the underlying neural mechanisms of
human motor learning and memory. The Journal of Physiology,
589(Pt 1), 21–28.
Chong, T. T., Cunnington, R., Williams, M. A., Kanwisher, N., &
Mattingley, J. B. (2008). fMRI adaptation reveals mirror neurons
in human inferior parietal cortex. Current Biology, 18(20),
1576–1580.
Christensen, A., Ilg, W., & Giese, M. A. (2011). Spatiotemporal tuning
of the facilitation of biological motion perception by concurrent
motor execution. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(9), 3493–
3499.
Cook, R., Press, C., Dickinson, A., & Heyes, C. (2010). Acquisition of
automatic imitation is sensitive to sensorimotor contingency.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 36(4), 840–852.
Cross, E. S., Hamilton, A. F. D. C., & Grafton, S. T. (2006). Building
a motor simulation de novo: observation of dance by dancers.
NeuroImage, 31(3), 1257–1267.
Cross, E. S., Hamilton, A. F. D. C., Kraemer, D. J. M., Kelley, W. M.,
& Grafton, S. T. (2009a). Dissociable substrates for body motion
and physical experience in the human action observation network.
The European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(7), 1383–1392.
123
558
Cross, E. S., Kraemer, D. J. M., Hamilton, A. F. D. C., Kelley, W. M.,
& Grafton, S. T. (2009b). Sensitivity of the action observation
network to physical and observational learning. Cerebral Cortex,
19(2), 315–326.
Dessing, J. C., & Craig, C. M. (2010). Bending it like Beckham: how
to visually fool the goalkeeper. PLoS One, 5(10), e13161.
di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G.
(1992). Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study.
Experimental Brain Research, 91(1), 176–180.
Dinstein, I., Thomas, C., Humphreys, K., Minshew, N., Behrmann, M.,
& Heeger, D. J. (2010). Normal movement selectivity in autism.
Neuron, 66(3), 461–469.
Farrow, D., & Abernethy, B. (2003). Do expertise and the degree of
perception-action coupling aVect natural anticipatory perfor-
mance? Perception, 32(9), 1127–1139.
Fazio, P., Cantagallo, A., Craighero, L., D’Ausilio, A., Roy, A. C., Po-
zzo, T., et al. (2009). Encoding of human action in Broca’s area.
Brain, 132(Pt 7), 1980–1988.
Flach, R., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2004). The two-thirds power law
in motion perception. Visual Cognition, 11(4), 461–481.
Freyd, J. J. (1983). The mental representation of movement when static
stimuli are viewed. Perception & Psychophysics, 33(6), 575–581.
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action
recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(Pt 2), 593–609.
Gangitano, M., Mottaghy, F. M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2004). Modu-
lation of premotor mirror neuron activity during observation of
unpredictable grasping movements. The European Journal of
Neuroscience, 20(8), 2193–2202.
Garrison, K. A., Winstein, C. J., & Aziz-Zadeh, L. (2010). The mirror
neuron system: a neural substrate for methods in stroke rehabili-
tation. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 24(5), 404–412.
Grafton, S. T. (2009). Embodied cognition and the simulation of action
to understand others. Annals of the New York Academy of Sci-
ences, 1156, 97–117.
Grafton, S. T., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2007). Evidence for a distrib-
uted hierarchy of action representation in the brain. Human Move-
ment Science, 26(4), 590–616.
Gruetzmacher, N., Panzer, S., Blandin, Y. & Shea, C.H. (2011). Obser-
vation and physical practice: Coding of simple motor sequences.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 1111–1123.
Hayes, S. J., Elliott, D., & Bennett, S. J. (2010). General motor repre-
sentations are developed during action-observation. Experimental
Brain Research, 204(2), 199–206.
Hayes, S. J., Timmis, M. A., & Bennett, S. J. (2009). Eye movements
are not a prerequisite for learning movement sequence timing
through observation. Acta Psychologica, 131(3), 202–208.
Hecht, H., Vogt, S., & Prinz, W. (2001). Motor learning enhances per-
ceptual judgment: a case for action-perception transfer. Psycho-
logical Research, 65(1), 3–14.
Hermsdörfer, J., Goldenberg, G., Wachsmuth, C., Conrad, B., Ceballos-
Baumann, A. O., Bartenstein, P., et al. (2001). Cortical correlates
of gesture processing: clues to the cerebral mechanisms underlying
apraxia during the imitation of meaningless gestures. Neuroimage,
14(1 Pt 1), 149–161.
Heyes, C. (2010). Where do mirror neurons come from? Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(4), 575–583.
Heyes, C., Bird, G., Johnson, H., & Haggard, P. (2005). Experience
modulates automatic imitation. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain
Research, 22(2), 233–240.
Heyes, C. M., & Foster, C. L. (2002). Motor learning by observation:
evidence from a serial reaction time task. The Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology. A Human Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 55(2), 593–607.
Holmes, P., & Calmels, C. (2008). A neuroscientiWc review of imagery
and observation use in sport. Journal of Motor Behavior, 40(5),
433–445.
123
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G. & Prinz, W. (2001). The
Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and
action planning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–
878 (discussion 878–937).
Hubbard, T. L. (2005). Representational momentum and related dis-
placements in spatial memory: A review of the Wndings. Psycho-
nomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 822–851.
Jackson, R. C., Warren, S., & Abernethy, B. (2006). Anticipation skill
and susceptibility to deceptive movement. Acta Psychologica,
123(3), 355–371.
Jellema, T., & Perrett, D. I. (2003a). Perceptual history inXuences neu-
ral responses to face and body postures. Journal of Cognitive Neu-
roscience, 15(7), 961–971.
Jellema, T., & Perrett, D. I. (2003b). Cells in monkey STS responsive
to articulated body motions and consequent static posture: a case
of implied motion? Neuropsychologia, 41(13), 1728–1737.
Keysers, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). Demystifying social cognition: a
Hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 501–507.
Kilner, J. M., Friston, K. J., & Frith, C. D. (2007). Predictive coding:
an account of the mirror neuron system. Cognitive Processing,
8(3), 159–166.
Kilner, J. M., Neal, A., Weiskopf, N., Friston, K. J., & Frith, C. D.
(2009). Evidence of mirror neurons in human inferior frontal
gyrus. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(32), 10153–10159.
Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., & Blakemore, S. J. (2003). An interfer-
ence eVect of observed biological movement on action. Current
Biology, 13(6), 522–525.
Kilner, J. M., Vargas, C., Duval, S., Blakemore, S., & Sirigu, A.
(2004). Motor activation prior to observation of a predicted move-
ment. Nature Neuroscience, 7(12), 1299–1301.
Knoblich, G., & Flach, R. (2001). Predicting the eVects of actions:
interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science,
12(6), 467–472.
Knoblich, G., Seigerschmidt, E., Flach, R., & Prinz, W. (2002).
Authorship eVects in the prediction of handwriting strokes: evi-
dence for action simulation during action perception. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology. A Human Experimental
Psychology, 55(3), 1027–1046.
Komatsu, H. (2006). The neural mechanisms of perceptual Wlling-in.
Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 7(3), 220–231.
Kourtzi, Z., & Kanwisher, N. (2000). Activation in human MT/MST
by static images with implied motion. Journal of Cognitive Neu-
roscience, 12(1), 48–55.
Kraskov, A., Dancause, N., Quallo, M. M., Shepherd, S., & Lemon, R.
N. (2009). Corticospinal neurons in macaque ventral premotor
cortex with mirror properties: a potential mechanism for action
suppression? Neuron, 64(6), 922–930.
Krekelberg, B., Dannenberg, S., HoVmann, K., Bremmer, F., & Ross,
J. (2003). Neural correlates of implied motion. Nature,
424(6949), 674–677.
Krekelberg, B., Vatakis, A., & Kourtzi, Z. (2005). Implied motion
from form in the human visual cortex. Journal of Neurophysiol-
ogy, 94(6), 4373–4386.
Lingnau, A., Gesierich, B. & Caramazza, A. (2009). Asymmetric fMRI
adaptation reveals no evidence for mirror neurons in humans.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 106(24), 9925–9930.
Lorteije, J. A. M., Kenemans, J. L., Jellema, T., van der Lubbe, R.
H. J., Lommers, M. W. & van Wezel, R. J. A. (2007). Adaptation
to real motion reveals direction-selective interactions between
real and implied motion processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuro-
science, 19(8), 1231–1240.
Maeda, F., Kleiner-Fisman, G., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2002). Motor
facilitation while observing hand actions: speciWcity of the eVect
and role of observer’s orientation. Journal of Neurophysiology,
87(3), 1329–1335.
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
Maslovat, D., Hodges, N. J., Krigolson, O. E., & Handy, T. C. (2010).
Observational practice beneWts are limited to perceptual improve-
ments in the acquisition of a novel coordination skill. Experimental
Brain Research, 204(1), 119–130.
Mattar, A. A. G., & Gribble, P. L. (2005). Motor learning by observing.
Neuron, 46(1), 153–160.
Moscatelli, A., Polito, L., & Lacquaniti, F. (2011). Time perception of
action photographs is more precise than that of still photographs.
Experimental Brain Research, 210(1), 25–32.
Motes, M. A., Hubbard, T. L., Courtney, J. R., & Rypma, B. (2008). A
principal components analysis of dynamic spatial memory biases.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 34(5), 1076–1083.
Muellbacher, W., Ziemann, U., Wissel, J., Dang, N., KoXer, M., Facchini,
S., et al. (2002). Early consolidation in human primary motor
cortex. Nature, 415(6872), 640–644.
Mukamel, R., Ekstrom, A., Kaplan, J., Iacoboni, M. & Fried, I. (2010).
Single-Neuron Responses in Humans during Execution and
Observation of Actions. Current Biology, 20(8), 750–756.
Ong, N. T., & Hodges, N. J. (2010). Absence of after-eVects for
observers after watching a visuomotor adaptation. Experimental
Brain Research, 205(3), 325–334.
Orgs, G., Bestmann, S., Schuur, F., & Haggard, P. (2011). From body
form to biological motion: the apparent velocity of human move-
ment biases subjective time. Psychological Science, 22(6), 712–
717.
Orgs, G., Dombrowski, J., Heil, M., & Jansen-Osmann, P. (2008).
Expertise in dance modulates alpha/beta event-related desynchro-
nization during action observation. The European Journal of Neu-
roscience, 27(12), 3380–3384.
Pazzaglia, M., Pizzamiglio, L., Pes, E., & Aglioti, S. M. (2008a). The
sound of actions in apraxia. Current Biology, 18(22), 1766–1772.
Pazzaglia, M., Smania, N., Corato, E., & Aglioti, S. M. (2008b). Neu-
ral underpinnings of gesture discrimination in patients with limb
apraxia. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(12), 3030–3041.
Peigneux, P., Salmon, E., van der Linden, M., Garraux, G., Aerts, J.,
DelWore, G., et al. (2000). The role of lateral occipitotemporal
junction and area MT/V5 in the visual analysis of upper-limb pos-
tures. NeuroImage, 11(6 Pt 1), 644–655.
Perrett, D. I., Xiao, D., Barraclough, N. E., Keysers, C. & Oram, M.W.
(2009). Seeing the future: Natural image sequences produce
“anticipatory” neuronal activity and bias perceptual report. Quar-
terly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(11), 2081–2104.
Pessoa, L., Thompson, E. & Noë, A. (1998). Finding out about Wlling-
in: a guide to perceptual completion for visual science and the phi-
losophy of perception. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(6),
723–748 (discussion 748–802).
Petroni, A., Baguear, F., & Della-Maggiore, V. (2010). Motor reso-
nance may originate from sensorimotor experience. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 104(4), 1867–1871.
Peuskens, H., Vanrie, J., Verfaillie, K., & Orban, G. A. (2005). Speci-
Wcity of regions processing biological motion. The European
Journal of Neuroscience, 21(10), 2864–2875.
Pobric, G., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2006). Action understanding re-
quires the left inferior frontal cortex. Current Biology, 16(5),
524–529.
Porro, C. A., Facchin, P., Fusi, S., Dri, G., & Fadiga, L. (2007).
Enhancement of force after action observation: behavioural and
neurophysiological studies. Neuropsychologia, 45(13), 3114–
3121.
Prather, J. F., Peters, S., Nowicki, S., & Mooney, R. (2008). Precise
auditory-vocal mirroring in neurons for learned vocal communi-
cation. Nature, 451(7176), 305–310.
Press, C., Heyes, C., & Kilner, J. M. (2011). Learning to understand
others’ actions. Biology Letters, 7(3), 457–460.
559
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of
Cognitive Psychology, 9(2), 129–154.
Proverbio, A. M., Riva, F., & Zani, A. (2009). Observation of static
pictures of dynamic actions enhances the activity of movement-
related brain areas. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5389.
Puce, A., & Perrett, D. (2003). Electrophysiology and brain imaging of
biological motion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci-
ety of London. Series B Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 435–445.
Ramnani, N., & Miall, R. C. (2004). A system in the human brain
for predicting the actions of others. Nature Neuroscience,
7(1), 85–90.
Reithler, J., van Mier, H. I., Peters, J. C., & Goebel, R. (2007). Non-
visual motor learning inXuences abstract action observation. Cur-
rent Biology, 17(14), 1201–1207.
Ripoll, H., Kerlirzin, Y., Stein, J., & Reine, B. (1995). Analysis of
information processing, decision making, and visual strategies in
complex problem solving sport situations. Human Movement Sci-
ence, 14, 325–349.
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. An-
nual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.
Sasaki, Y., Nanez, J. E., & Watanabe, T. (2010). Advances in visual
perceptual learning and plasticity. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience,
11(1), 53–60.
Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Prospective coding in event
representation. Cognitive Processing, 8(2), 93–102.
Sebanz, N., & ShiVrar, M. (2009). Detecting deception in a bluYng
body: the role of expertise. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
16(1), 170–175.
Senior, C., Barnes, J., Giampietro, V., Simmons, A., Bullmore, E. T.,
Brammer, M., et al. (2000). The functional neuroanatomy of im-
plicit-motion perception or representational momentum. Current
Biology, 10(1), 16–22.
Senior, C., Ward, J., & David, A. S. (2002). Representational momen-
tum and the brain: An investigation into the functional necessity
of V5/MT. Visual Cognition, 9(1), 81–92.
Shea, C. H., Wright, D. L., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (2000). Physical
and observational practice aVord unique learning opportunities.
Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(1), 27–36.
Small, S. L., Buccino, G. & Solodkin, A. (2010). The mirror neuron
system and treatment of stroke. Developmental Psychobiology.
doi:10.1002/dev.20504.
Smeeton, N. J. & Huys, R. (2010). Anticipation of tennis-shot direction
from whole-body movement: The role of movement amplitude
and dynamics. Human Movement Science. doi:10.1016/j.hu-
mov.2010.07.012.
Springer, A., Brandstadter, S., Liepelt, R., Birngruber, T., Giese, M.,
Mechsner, F., et al. (2011). Motor execution aVects action predic-
tion. Brain and Cognition, 76(1), 26–36.
Stefan, K., Cohen, L. G., Duque, J., Mazzocchio, R., Celnik, P.,
Sawaki, L., et al. (2005). Formation of a motor memory by action
observation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25(41), 9339–9346.
Streuber, S., Knoblich, G., Sebanz, N., BülthoV, H.H. & de la Rosa, S.
(2011). The eVect of social context on the use of visual informa-
tion. Experimental Brain Research. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-
2830-9.
Stürmer, B., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2000). Correspondence
eVects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 26(6), 1746–1759.
Umiltà, M. A., Kohler, E., Gallese, V., Fogassi, L., Fadiga, L., Key-
sers, C., et al. (2001). I know what you are doing. A neurophysi-
ological study. Neuron, 31(1), 155–165.
Urgesi, C., Candidi, M., Fabbro, F., Romani, M., & Aglioti, S. M.
(2006a). Motor facilitation during action observation: topo-
graphic mapping of the target muscle and inXuence of the onlook-
123
560
er’s posture. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 23(9),
2522–2530.
Urgesi, C., Candidi, M., Ionta, S., & Aglioti, S. M. (2007). Represen-
tation of body identity and body actions in extrastriate body area
and ventral premotor cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 10(1), 30–31.
Urgesi, C., Maieron, M., Avenanti, A., Tidoni, E., Fabbro, F., & Agli-
oti, S. M. (2010). Simulating the future of actions in the human
corticospinal system. Cerebral Cortex, 20(11), 2511–2521.
Urgesi, C., Moro, V., Candidi, M., & Aglioti, S. M. (2006b). Mapping
implied body actions in the human motor system. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 26(30), 7942–7949.
Van Overwalle, F., & Baetens, K. (2009). Understanding others’ ac-
tions and goals by mirror and mentalizing systems: A meta-anal-
ysis. NeuroImage, 48(3), 564–584.
Verfaillie, K., & Daems, A. (2002). Representing and anticipating hu-
man actions in vision. Visual Cognition, 9(1), 217–232.
123
Psychological Research (2012) 76:542–560
Vinter, A., & Perruchet, P. (2002). Implicit motor learning through
observational training in adults and children. Memory & Cogni-
tion, 30(2), 256–261.
Weissensteiner, J., Abernethy, B., Farrow, D., & Müller, S. (2008).
The development of anticipation: A cross-sectional examination
of the practice experiences contributing to skill in cricket batting.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(6), 663–684.
Wenke, D., & Haggard, P. (2009). How voluntary actions modulate
time perception. Experimental Brain Research, 196(1), 311–318.
Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement
in perceiving conspeciWcs. Psychological Bulletin, 131(3), 460–
473.
Zago, M., & Lacquaniti, F. (2005). Visual perception and interception
of falling objects: a review of evidence for an internal model of
gravity. Journal of Neural Engineering, 2(3), S198–S208.