Cited by 215Action Observation and SynchronizationNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and Agency

Twin Peaks: An ERP Study of Action Planning and Control in Coacting Individuals

Open access
Sebanz, Natalie, Knoblich, Günther, Prinz, Wolfgang, Wascher, Edmund·2006·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that perceiving another's actions activates corresponding representations in an observer's action system. The present study investigated how performing a task with another person affects action planning and control. Reaction times (RTs) and event-related potentials were measured while participants performed a go/no-go task alone and with another person. Three effects of acting together were observed. First, RTs were slowed when individuals had to respond to a stimulus referring to the other's action, suggesting that an action selection conflict occurred. Second, at frontal sites, a stimulus referring to the other's action elicited a similar electrophysiological response as a stimulus referring to one's own action. Finally, on no-go trials, P300 amplitude was significantly larger in a group setting, indicating that an action was suppressed. These findings provide evidence that individuals acting in a social context form shared action representations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.859

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Wascher, E.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2006-05-01
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
859-870
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2146989891
Cited by
215
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 15
FWCI
9.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
action planning, action control, coaction, action observation, P300, social environment, event-related potentials, go/no-go task, reaction time
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Choice Behavior, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Social Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review