Conclusion

activity at the same point in time as a temporary synchronization of cell activity (Eckhorn, Frien, Bauer, Woelbern, & Kehr, 1993; Gray, Engel, Koenig, & Singer, 1992). This supports the above described idea of binding of certain codes.

We have seen that behavioral as well as neuroscientific experiements analyzed the interaction of perception and action using different kinds of paradigms. It was evaluated how present or past actions may facilitate or hinder perception. Evidence for the interaction of perception and action does not only derive from behavioral studies. With the discovery of the so-called

“mirror neurons” a neurophysiological correlate was found were perception and action may interact.

not only able to plan a movement in order to achieve a certain goal (forward model) but it is also able to infer from a certain effect which action is necessary to cause even that effect (inverses model). Fourt, because of the perceptual resonance to an observed action individuals are able to understand the actions and possibly the intentions of other people. “Simulation Theory“ therefore assumes that individuals are able to understand the intention of other human beings because they mentally simulate the perceived action. This leads to the conclusion that observing an action activates the same mechanisms in the brain of the observer which are activated when the observer imagines that action or even intends to perform this action on his own. Derived from this hypothesis it could be assumed that when someone perceives his own past actions, more information about the intention of the acting individual should be available. Moreover, this should lead to even better predictions of the outcome of own actions.

Taken together, there is strong evidence from a theoretical as well as from an empirical point of view for the assumption that perceiving own movements is qualitatively different from perceiving movements of strangers. It is important in this context to remember the distinction between on-line and off-line perception. The first type refers to the situation when an individual perceives the effect of its actions while it is actively performing it. This includes visual as well as kinaesthetic information about the outcome of an action. The second type refers to the perception of own movements after they have been performed; that means that there will be a time delay between the execution and the observation of the movement. The later type is the objective of the present work.

When a person perceives the own movement, the same “system” that had planned the action is now perceiving it and therefore the “resonance” should be very high. If the movement of a stranger is perceived, the overlap between perception and action should be smaller because of the different styles of performance of persons. The matching of the above describes “motor codes” and “perception codes” will be smaller and that should lead to a worse performance.

This assumption implies that if more “motor codes” are activated performance and perception will be better. For instance Grezes, Frith and Passingham (2003) could show that the activity within the parietal premotor circuit, which is used for action perception, starts earlier when own movements are judged in reference to other individuals‟ movements.

It moreover is assumed that the individual compares the perceived actions to what it would look or feel like when it performs exactly that movement on its own. First, this presupposes that the action performed earlier and the way it would be executed now is very similar. The self-recognition ability is therefore more or less based on identical actions. This leads to the conclusion that it should be very easy to identify own actions because the individual is an expert for its own actions and possesses about a good representation of that actions. Support for that hypothesis is the assumption that the same movement is carried out very differently by different persons but that there is a very stable movement style within one person. The inter-individual variability derives from the fact that there are different learning histories, skill levels and anatomical constraints which determine how the movement will look like.

However, it seems to be questionable if this advantages also refers to the fact that someone is able to predict the effects of own movements better than that of other individuals. As the TEC stated, there is a link between late perception and early action respectively action planning.

Nothing is said about the effects on the complex machinery of the late motor processes (Hommel et al., 2001). Therefore is also seems plausible to assume that there is no difference between the anticipation of action effects when perceiving the own movement or that of other individuals. From an ecological point of view it should not make a difference because normally the own movement is not perceived from a third-person perspective.

To sum up, based on the differential activation of the codes when watching different persons, one should be able to identify the own movement among that of others. The own action should awake some kind of familiarity in the observer. Moreover, it is assumed that individuals‟ have the best motor competencies for their own movements. That is they possess

the best knowledge of their own motor capabilities and they are experts for own movements.

Because of that the coordination with past own movements should be facilitated compared to the movements of other people. However it remains ambiguous whether individuals are also better to predict the outcome of own actions compared to other human beings movements.

It will be interesting to further investigate the question whether individuals are able to recognize the own past movement and if they are able to predict the effects of the own movement better than that of other people. Before presenting the results of two own experiments, an overview about studies will be given that already employed similar questions.