perhaps something by Paul Haggard and colleagues would be close

You might consider some of the research by Scott Jordan and colleagues. They measured memory for the location of a moving object when an observer had no control or partial control over movement of the object or witnessed other participants controlling movement of the object. Two references to start with would be: Jordan, J. S., & Knoblich, G. (2004). Spatial perception and control. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 54 –59 and Jordan J. S., & Hunsinger, M. (2008). Learned patterns of action-effect anticipation contribute to the spatial displacement of continuously moving stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 113–124.

You might also look into the work of Jessica Witt - who has been working on a framework that suggests that action capabilities influence the perception of events (e.g., Witt, J. K. (2011a). Action’s Effect on Perception. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 20, 201-206) - this may get you in the direction your interested in.

There are many studies on how speech perception changes during motor manipulation on articulators and some others on how speech production changes when auditory feedback is altered.

Some examples:

Houde, J. F., & Jordan, M. I. (1998). Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science (New York, N.Y.), 279(5354), 1213–6. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9469813

Lametti, D. R., Nasir, S. M., & Ostry, D. J. (2012). Sensory preference in speech production revealed by simultaneous alteration of auditory and somatosensory feedback. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(27), 9351–8. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0404-12.2012

Martin Eimer examined unidirectional influences (action -> perception) in a tactile EEG study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716166

It may be also worthwhile to have a look at the studies conducted by Tobias Heed in Hamburg. However, I don't know whether he investigates bidirectional influences.

Maybe now is the time to examine bidirectional influences ...

Go for it ;)

Studies on action effects by Ziessler and Waszak would also be relevant.

Look at these papers:

Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008 Oct;129(2):217-27. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.06.001. Epub 2008 Jul 15.

Non-linear gaining in precision aiming: making Fitts' task a bit easier.

Fernandez L, Bootsma RJ.

Phasing and the pickup of optical information in cascade juggling

AAM Van Santvoord, PJ Beek - Ecological Psychology, 1994 - Taylor & Francis

See also work by Prinz and colleagues

See also:

Murgia, M., Hohmann, T., Galmonte, A., Raab, M., & Agostini, T. (2012). Recognising one’s own motor actions through sound: the role of temporal factors. Perception, 41(8), 976–987.

Flach, R., Knoblich G., & Prinz, W. (2004). Recognizing one’s own clapping: The role of temporal cues. Psychological Research, 69, 147-156.

Dear all thank you for your replies and interesting pointers. I have yet to find an example of a single paradigm in which bidirectional influences are assessed. Most of the suggestion test a unilateral influence of action on perception (e.g. Witt , Flach,) or perception to action (e.g. Kilner). I'm still searching for such an example so more responses are welcome (or I may have missed something). Thank

roy

Hi Roy, I wrote a paper on it that may help but if the suggestions from the other colleagues don't satisfy your needs, perhaps you can be more explicit about your research question. It seems to me that the bidirectional link between perception and action is a conceptual framework that can't easily be captured in an experimental paradigm. Typically, one needs to manipulate action and observe changed in perception and (perhaps within the same setting) manipulate perception and observe changes in action. Some of the work on embodied cognition has shown the influence of action on perception (eg if you use the muscles that are used for smiling you tend to find things funnier) with the understanding that the influence of perception on action is established in this case (ie people smile when they find something funny). The first proposals for this link came from ecological psychology and direct perception by J.J. Gibson which you may be familiar with; his work is still relevant and you may find inspiration for your own experiments there. Finally, if you want to capture the more dynamic nature of the reciprocal link, you may want to look at activities that fully depend on it such as driving, sailing, ball sports. In these activities, you find that people perceive their environment which allows them to move in it, but also that their movement allows them to perceive new gaps or obstacles. In essence you need to capture the dynamics of the activity (how it evolves over time) if you are to fully capture the bidirectional links.

This certainly is an interesting question so let me/us know how you progress.

Kind regards,

Rita O.

Possible resources:

Keywords: ecological psychology; embodied cognition; dynamical systems

de Oliveira, R. F., Damisch, L., Hossner, E.-J., Oudejans, R. R. D., Raab, M., Volz, K., et al. (2009). The bidirectional links between decision-making, perception and action. Prog Brain Res, 174, 85-93.

Roy,

I think that this seeing-more-than-is-there (SMTT) experiment demonstrates bidirectional influences between action and perception. Look at pp. 324 - 325 here:

http://people.umass.edu/trehub/YCCOG828%20copy.pdf

Does this SMTT experiment get at the kind of action perception evidence you want to find?

Hello, i think this bidirectional link is quite nicely covered in the attached article. They conduct a study looking at both, the action-perception transfer (APT) as well as the perception-action transfer (PAT).

Kind regards,

Alexandra

We commonly think of action in terms of overt motor acts. Maybe we should also consider action in terms of covert acts of spatially-directed attention. An example of this kind of action is the movement of the heuristic self-locus in our phenomenal world. An example is given in Fig. 5, here:

http://theassc.org/documents/where_am_i_redux

Action-specific perception demonstrates how behavioural potential modulates perception of the environment. It is descended from Gibson's ecological perspective previously mentioned in this thread, and it may be relevant to your question. Two review articles are cited below:

Witt, J. K. (2011). Action’s effect on perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 201-206.

Proffitt, D. R., & Linkenauger, S. A. (2013). Perception viewed as a phenotypic expression. Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline, 171-197.

Dear friends,

 Although it elicited very interesting comments, Roy’s question remains largely unanswered.  In my opinion, the reason is simply because perception and action are theoretically and practically inseparable.  This was first recognized by Sherrington, and discussed in his famous 1906 book (“The Integrative Action of the Nervous System”). 

            1.  Perception and action are intimately interactive in the Perception-Action (PA) cycle, which is the biocybernetic loop of neural information processing by which the organism adjusts to its environment in all behavior.  Perception leads to action, which generates new perception, which leads to new action, and so on until a goal is reached.

            2.  The PA cycle has deep biological roots, and operates at all levels of the nervous system, from the spinal cord to the neocortex.  It is hierarchically organized along the nerve axis to handle all levels of interaction between organism and environment.  At all levels there is feed-forward and feed-back, with continuous transfer of information in both directions between perception and action.  It is experimentally difficult to “dissect” action from perception after sensation becomes perception and action transcends the reflex.

            3.  All goal-directed behavior of certain complexity is founded on the simultaneous operation of several PA cycles at different hierarchical levels serving a hierarchy of nested actions, percepts and goals, all with a different time-base.

             4.  From the point of view of cognitive neuroscience the implications of the PA-cycle organization and dynamics are enormous.  For one thing, an action can commence anywhere in the cycle: in perceptual cortex, in executive cortex, in the internal organs or in the environment.   This obviates a “center of will,” a “central executive,” or any other such construct, which inevitably leads to an infinite regress.

             5.  It follows, as a corollary, that the idea of an isolatable “transfer” from perception to action or vice versa is simplistic and experimentally fruitless.  So is the argument of what comes first, perception or action.  It can be argued, however, that the first PA cycle in life begins with action:  the neonate’s first cry and palpation of the mother’s breast in search of the nipple—all of which is, of course, in genetic phyletic memory.

            6.  The inseparability of perception and action is epitomized by mirror neurons.  In principle, mirror neurons, whether in frontal cortex or elsewhere, are embedded in the PA cycle and thus attuned to both, the perception of a stimulus and the action that it elicits.  This is true whether the stimulus is of one modality or another and whether the action is simple or complex.  The PA cycle, especially where the cortex is involved, is essentially integrative. The conversational language between two persons is the highest example of two PA cycles interacting and interlocked with each other.

            For further discussion of my views and research on the PA cycle, see:

 J.M. Fuster - Upper processing stages of the perception―action cycle.  Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8: 143-145, 2004.

J.M. Fuster – The prefrontal cortex makes the brain a preadaptive system. Proceedings of the IEEE, 102: 417-425, 2014.

 J.M. Fuster - The Prefrontal Cortex (Fifth Edition). Academic Press, London 2015.

            I hope someone will find this useful.  Cheers, Joaquín

 I agree with the explanation of Drs de Oliveira and Fuster regarding the difficult dissociation between both terms (btw, great reference to Dr. Charles Sherrington!). Moreover, considering that action and perception are mutually complemented, the assessment of bidirectional influences through any task should consider the interaction of the other sensorial domains.

 An elegant solution proposed to integrate and computationally model both motor and cognitive domains in human daily activities are the internal models: the neural representations of the external world (i.e. brain structures that encode and reproduce the dynamical properties of body parts). I attach you some references which may be interesting. 

Article Control of mental activities by internal models in the cerebellum

Article Sir Charles Sherrington's The integrative action of the nerv...

Article An Internal Model for Sensorimotor Integration

Article Kawato, M. Internal models for motor control and trajectory ...