7/27/2019 Common Coding Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/common-coding-theory 1/3

Common coding theoryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common coding theory is a cognitive psychology theory describing how perceptual representations (e.g. of 

things we can see and hear) and motor representations (e.g. of hand actions) are linked. The theory claims thatthere is a shared representation (a common code) for both perception and action. More important, seeing an

event activates the action associated with that event, and performing an action activates the associated

perceptual event.[1]

 

The idea of direct perception - actions links originates in the work of the American psychologist William

James and more recently, American neurophysiologist and Nobel prize winner  Roger Sperry. Sperry argued

that the perception –action cycle is the fundamental logic of the nervous system[2]

 Perception and action

processes are functionally intertwined: perception is a means to action and action is a means to perception.

Indeed, the vertebrate brain has evolved for governing motor activity with the basic function to transform

sensory patterns into patterns of motor coordination.

Contents

[hide] 

  1 Background 

  2 Evidence for common coding 

  3 Commensurate representation 

  4 Ideomotor principle 

  5 Related approaches 

  6 Further reading 

  7 References 

  8 See also 

Background[edit source | editbeta] 

The classical approach to cognition is a 'sandwich' model which assumes three stages of information

processing: perception, cognition and then action. In this model, perception and action do not interact directly,

instead cognitive processing is needed to convert perceptual representations into action. For example, this

might require creating arbitrary linkages (mapping between sensory and motor codes).[3]

 

In contrast, the common coding account claims that perception and action are directly linked by a common

computational code.[4] 

7/27/2019 Common Coding Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/common-coding-theory 2/3

This theory, put forward by German scientist Wolfgang Prinz and his colleagues from the Max Planck Institute,

claims parity between perception and action. Its core assumption is that actions are coded in terms of the

perceivable effects (i.e., the distal perceptual events) they should generate.[5]

 This theory also states

that perception of an action should activate action representations to the degree that the perceived and the

represented action are similar .[6] Such a claim suggests that we represent observed, executed and imagined

actions in a commensurate manner and makes specific predictions regarding the nature of action and

perceptual representations. First, representations for observed and executed actions should rely on a shared

neural substrate. Second, a common cognitive system predicts facilitation of action based on directly prior 

perception and vice versa. Third, such a system predicts interference effects when action and perception

attempt to access shared representations simultaneously.

Evidence for common coding[edit source | editbeta] 

In the past decade, a growing number of results have been interpreted in favor of the common coding theory.

For instance, one functional MRI study demonstrated that the brain’s response to the 2/3 power law of motion

(i.e., which dictates a strong coupling between movement curvature and velocity) is much stronger and more

widespread than to other types of motion. Compliance with this law was reflected in the activation of a large

network of brain areas subserving motor production, visual motion processing, and action observation

functions. These results support the common coding and the notion of similar neural coding for motion

perception and production.[7]

 

One of the most direct evidence for common coding in the brain now stems from the fact that pattern classifiers

that can differentiate based on brain activity whether someone has performed action A or B can also classify,above chance, whether that person heard the sound of action A or B, thereby demonstrating that action

execution and perception are represented using a common code [8]

 

Recently, the common coding theory received increased interest from researchers in developmental

psychology,[9] cognitive neuroscience,[10] robotics,[11] and social psychology.[12] 

Commensurate representation[edit source | editbeta] 

Common coding posits, on top of separate coding, further domains of representation in which afferent and

efferent information share the same format and dimensionality of representation. Common coding refers to

‘late’ afferent representations (referring to events in the environment) and ‘early’ efferent representations

(referring to intended events). Such representations are commensurate since they both exhibit distal

reference.[13][14]

 They permit creating linkages between perception and action that do not rely on arbitrary

mappings. Common coding conceives action planning in terms of operations that determine intended future

events from given current events (matching between event codes and action codes). In particular perception

and action may modulate each other by virtue of similarity. Unlike rule-based mapping of incommensurate

7/27/2019 Common Coding Theory

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/common-coding-theory 3/3

codes which requires preceding acquisition of mapping rules, similarity-based matching of commensurate

codes requires no such preceding rule acquisition.

Ideomotor principle[edit source | editbeta] 

In line with the ideomotor theory of  William James (1890) and Hermann Lotze (1852), the common coding

theory posits that actions are represented in terms of their perceptual consequences. Actions are represented

like any other events, the sole distinctive feature being that they are (or can be) generated through bodily

movements. Perceivable action consequences may vary on two major dimensions: resident vs. remote effects,

and ‘cool’ versus ‘hot’ outcomes (i.e., reward values associated with action outcomes).[15]

 

When individuals perform actions they learn what their movements lead to (Ideomotor learning). The ideomotor 

theory claims that these associations can also be used in the reverse order (cf. William James, 1890 II, p. 526):

When individuals perceive events of which they know (from previous learning) that they may result from certain

movements, perception of these events may evoke the movements leading to them (Ideomotor control). The

distinction between learning and control is equivalent to the distinction between forward and inverse

computation in motor learning and control.[16]

 Ideomotor learning supports prediction and anticipation of action

outcomes, given current action. Ideomotor control supports selection and control of action, given intended

outcomes.

Related approaches[edit source | editbeta] 

While most traditional approaches tend to stress the relative independence of perception and action, some

theories have argued for closer links. Motor theories of speech and action perception have made a case for 

motor contributions to perception.[17][18]

 Close non-representational connections between perception and action

have also been claimed by ecological approaches.[19][20] 

Today common coding theory is closely related to research and theory in two intersecting fields of study: Mirror 

neurons systems and embodied cognition. As concerns mirror systems, common coding seems to reflect the

functional logic of mirror neurons and mechanisms in the brain.[21]

  As concerns embodied cognition, common

coding is compatible with the claim that meaning is embodied, i.e. grounded in perception and action.[22][23]

 

Further reading[edit source | editbeta] 

  Morsella, E., Bargh, J.A., & Gollwitzer, P.M. (Eds.) (2009). Oxford Handbook of Human Action. New York:

Oxford University Press.

  Roessler, J., & Eilan, N. (Eds.) (2003). Agency and self-awareness. New York: Oxford University Press.

References