The Relationship Between Action Execution, Imagination, and Perception in Children
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Relationship Between Action Execution, Imagination, and Perception in Children by Emma Jane Yoxon A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Exercise Science University of Toronto © Copyright by Emma Yoxon 2015 ii The relationship between action execution, imagination, and perception in children Emma Yoxon Master of Science Exercise Science University of Toronto 2015 Abstract Action simulation has been proposed as a unifying mechanism for imagination, perception and execution of action. In children, there has been considerable focus on the development of action imagination, although these findings have not been related to other processes that may share similar mechanisms. The purpose of the research reported in this thesis was to examine action imagination and perception (action possibility judgements) from late childhood to adolescence. Accordingly, imagined and perceived movement times (MTs) were compared to actual MTs in a continuous pointing task as a function of age. The critical finding was that differences between actual and imagined MTs remained relatively stable across the age groups, whereas perceived MTs approached actual MTs as a function of age. These findings suggest that although action simulation may be developed in early childhood, action possibility judgements may rely on additional processes that continue to develop in late childhood and adolescence. iii Acknowledgments I am very grateful to have been surrounded by such wonderful people throughout this process. To my supervisor, Dr. Tim Welsh, thank you for all of the wonderful opportunities your supervision has afforded me. Your unwavering support created an environment for me to be challenged but also free to engage in new ideas and interests. Thank you for your encouragement, constant guidance, confidence and, of course, for making time to answer my numerous questions and queries. To Dr. Luc Tremblay, thank you for challenging me and creating many moments for me to think in new and innovative ways. To Dr. Jessica Brian, your guidance, input and feedback in developing the thesis project were greatly appreciated. To Dr. Mark Shmuckler, thank you for the helpful comments and criticisms that helped to shape the final document. To all of my lab-mates in the AA and PMB lab, thank you for the continuous support, reassurance and stimulating discussion. I would like to extend a special thank you to Sandra Pacione for being by my side throughout this process and for being a great lab-mate, friend and shoulder to lean on. Thank you to all of my friends in Toronto and around the world for your advice, inspiration and friendship. To Drew, thank you for listening to my fears and doubts, for your advice, guidance, encouragement and all of your love. Finally, thank you to my family: Mom, Dad, Renée and Ian for all your love and support leading up to and throughout this process. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... viii Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 Literature Review ............................................................................................................3 1.1 Common Coding Theory ........................................................................................................3 1.1.1 Neural Simulation of Action ....................................................................................4 1.1.2 Simulation as a Mechanism for Motor Imagery ......................................................5 1.1.3 Simulation as a Mechanism for Action Possibility Judgements ..............................7 1.2 Development .........................................................................................................................11 1.2.1 Typical Motor Development ..................................................................................11 1.2.2 Motor Imagery Development .................................................................................12 1.2.3 Representing the Actions of Others .......................................................................14 1.3 Summary ...............................................................................................................................15 1.4 The Current Project: Purpose and Specific Hypotheses .......................................................16 Chapter 2 The Independent Development of Action Imagination and Perception ........................18 2.1 Abstract .................................................................................................................................18 2.2 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................19 2.2.1 Neural simulation of action ....................................................................................20 2.2.2 Action simulation in children.................................................................................21 2.3 Methods.................................................................................................................................23 v 2.3.1 Participants .............................................................................................................23 2.3.2 Study Design and Tasks .........................................................................................23 2.4 Results ...................................................................................................................................28 2.4.1 Fitts’ Law ...............................................................................................................28 2.4.2 Group Differences ..................................................................................................30 2.4.3 The relationship between age and simulation congruency ....................................31 2.5 Discussion .............................................................................................................................33 2.5.1 Fitts’ law in imagination and perception ...............................................................33 2.5.2 The relationship between age and action imagination ...........................................34 2.5.3 The relationship between age and action perception .............................................35 2.5.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................37 Chapter 3 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................38 3.1 Summary ...............................................................................................................................38 3.2 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................................39 3.3 Limitations and Future Directions ........................................................................................40 References ......................................................................................................................................43 Appendices .....................................................................................................................................51 Appendix A: Edinburgh Handedness Questionnaire .....................................................................52 Appendix B: Additional Analysis ..................................................................................................53 vi List of Tables 2.1 Fitts’ law equations and statistical analysis for the linear regressions calculated between MT and ID for each of the tasks and groups……………………………………………. 30 vii List of Figures 2.1. An example of the pictures that were displayed in the perception task. Images 1 (hand on the right side target) and 2 (hand on the left side target) were alternated at a range of SOAs to create the apparent motion of the hand. ............................................................ 27 2.2 Linear regressions between index of difficulty (ID) and movement time for each of the three tasks, for each of the three experimental groups. ………………………………… 29 2.3. Mean imagined MTs for each of the execution, perception and imagination tasks. Asterisks indicate significant (Tukey’s HSD, p < .05, CV = 79.9) within group differences between the tasks. ………………………………………………………….. 32 2.4. Difference scores between imagination and execution (A) and perception and execution (B) as a function of age. Note: This analysis includes only child participants. ...……… 32 4.1. Ln transformation of ratios of imagination and perception MT as a function of actual execution movement time for each of the groups. ……………………………………... 54