Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?

Joint actions, such as music and dance, rely crucially on the ability of two, or more, agents to align their actions with great temporal precision. Within the literature that seeks to explain how this action alignment is possible, two broad approaches have appeared. The first, what we term the entra...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Lincoln John Colling, Kellie eWilliamson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-09-01
Series:Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00754/full
id doaj-af98cd71d4f3402288ccaaaf8eccb85c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-af98cd71d4f3402288ccaaaf8eccb85c2020-11-25T03:14:54ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience1662-51612014-09-01810.3389/fnhum.2014.00754102642Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?Lincoln John Colling0Kellie eWilliamson1Australian Catholic UniversityMacquarie UniversityJoint actions, such as music and dance, rely crucially on the ability of two, or more, agents to align their actions with great temporal precision. Within the literature that seeks to explain how this action alignment is possible, two broad approaches have appeared. The first, what we term the entrainment approach, has sought to explain these alignment phenomena in terms of the behavioural dynamics of the system of two agents. The second, what we term the emulator approach, has sought to explain these alignment phenomena in terms of mechanisms, such as forward and inverse models, that are implemented in the brain. They have often been pitched as alternative explanations of the same phenomena; however, we argue that this view is mistaken, because, as we show, these two approaches are engaged in distinct, and not mutually exclusive, explanatory tasks. While the entrainment approach seeks to uncover the general laws that govern behaviour the emulator approach seeks to uncover mechanisms. We argue that is possible to do both and that the entrainment approach must pay greater attention to the mechanisms that support the behavioural dynamics of interest. In short, the entrainment approach must be transformed into a neuroentrainment approach by adopting a mechanistic view of explanation and by seeking mechanisms that are implemented in the brain.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00754/fullJoint ActionPhilosophy of Neuroscienceentrainmentmechanistic explanationMotor emulationperception–action
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Lincoln John Colling
Kellie eWilliamson
spellingShingle Lincoln John Colling
Kellie eWilliamson
Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Joint Action
Philosophy of Neuroscience
entrainment
mechanistic explanation
Motor emulation
perception–action
author_facet Lincoln John Colling
Kellie eWilliamson
author_sort Lincoln John Colling
title Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?
title_short Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?
title_full Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?
title_fullStr Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?
title_full_unstemmed Entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: Alternatives or complementary approaches?
title_sort entrainment and motor emulation approaches to joint action: alternatives or complementary approaches?
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
issn 1662-5161
publishDate 2014-09-01
description Joint actions, such as music and dance, rely crucially on the ability of two, or more, agents to align their actions with great temporal precision. Within the literature that seeks to explain how this action alignment is possible, two broad approaches have appeared. The first, what we term the entrainment approach, has sought to explain these alignment phenomena in terms of the behavioural dynamics of the system of two agents. The second, what we term the emulator approach, has sought to explain these alignment phenomena in terms of mechanisms, such as forward and inverse models, that are implemented in the brain. They have often been pitched as alternative explanations of the same phenomena; however, we argue that this view is mistaken, because, as we show, these two approaches are engaged in distinct, and not mutually exclusive, explanatory tasks. While the entrainment approach seeks to uncover the general laws that govern behaviour the emulator approach seeks to uncover mechanisms. We argue that is possible to do both and that the entrainment approach must pay greater attention to the mechanisms that support the behavioural dynamics of interest. In short, the entrainment approach must be transformed into a neuroentrainment approach by adopting a mechanistic view of explanation and by seeking mechanisms that are implemented in the brain.
topic Joint Action
Philosophy of Neuroscience
entrainment
mechanistic explanation
Motor emulation
perception–action
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00754/full
work_keys_str_mv AT lincolnjohncolling entrainmentandmotoremulationapproachestojointactionalternativesorcomplementaryapproaches
AT kellieewilliamson entrainmentandmotoremulationapproachestojointactionalternativesorcomplementaryapproaches
_version_ 1724641711918940160