Dings showing that sensitivity to use subtle cues in biological motion is linked to DMXB-A social but not to motor imagery measures (Miller and Saygin, 2013). More specifically as reported here, the authors showed that form cues correlated more with the social than with the imagery measures suggesting that even if social cognition and motor imagery predict sensitivity to biological motion, these skills tap into differentMaterials and Methods ParticipantsTwenty-three healthy young adults (six males; mean age: 25.8; SD: 5.0) participated in the second experiment. All had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and had no prior knowledge of the experimental goals. These buy Mertansine participants did not take part in Experiment 1 and gave informed consent before participating in the experimental session that lasted approximately 20 min. All participants completed in a previous session the French version of the RME-test (Prevost et al., 2014) and only those who had a minimal score of 27 (corresponding to the French median score) were selected to take part in the following experiment. The protocol received approval from the ethics committee for Human Sciences of the University of Lille 3.Apparatus and Stimuli In this experiment, two-step actions were recorded from a different actor but following the same design as in Experiment 1 in order to generate new stimuli videos. Table 2 presents the characteristics of actions parameters in the personal and social condition. As expected, significant differences were obtained in the 3D motion kinematics between personal and social trials for many motor parameters and especially those that will be manipulated, i.e., RT and MT of the first element of the motor sequence (MT1).Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgAugust 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleLewkowicz et al.Reading social intention in kinematicsTABLE 2 | Mean kinematic parameters of the preparatory action for both the personal and the social trials. RT * Personal intention Social intention Median values Frequency of personal trials > median Frequency of social trials > median 395 438 408 5/15 10/15 590 618 599 9/15 6/15 APV1 APV2 * 529 487 509 11/15 5/15 MT1 ** 417 451 438 4/15 11/15 501 475 485 9/15 7/15 58 63 61 6/15 9/15 MT2 APH1 APH2 ** 58 65 63 4/15 11/The asterisks revealed the parameters for which significant differences were found between the two distributions in the personal and the social conditions using the median test (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01).In order to control for the amount of temporal and kinematic information available to participants, we used post-recording modification of the videos. This manipulation led to creation of three types of stimuli. Indeed, depending on the condition, the stimuli that were displayed could be the original video clips (RT + MT1 deviant), video clips normalized according to RTs (MT1 deviant) or video clips normalized according to the end of the grasping action (No deviant). The modification of each video clip was achieved on-line as follows. First, the mean of the parameters that needed to be homogenized was calculated across all trials (social and personal). Second, the video clips were displayed at an overall refreshment rate so that the display time of this parameter corresponded to the mean pre-determined value. For example, in the MT1 deviant condition, the parameter that needed to be homogenized was the RT. Thus, using the kinematic data, a deviance ratio was calculated for the section of the video clip corresponding to.Dings showing that sensitivity to use subtle cues in biological motion is linked to social but not to motor imagery measures (Miller and Saygin, 2013). More specifically as reported here, the authors showed that form cues correlated more with the social than with the imagery measures suggesting that even if social cognition and motor imagery predict sensitivity to biological motion, these skills tap into differentMaterials and Methods ParticipantsTwenty-three healthy young adults (six males; mean age: 25.8; SD: 5.0) participated in the second experiment. All had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and had no prior knowledge of the experimental goals. These participants did not take part in Experiment 1 and gave informed consent before participating in the experimental session that lasted approximately 20 min. All participants completed in a previous session the French version of the RME-test (Prevost et al., 2014) and only those who had a minimal score of 27 (corresponding to the French median score) were selected to take part in the following experiment. The protocol received approval from the ethics committee for Human Sciences of the University of Lille 3.Apparatus and Stimuli In this experiment, two-step actions were recorded from a different actor but following the same design as in Experiment 1 in order to generate new stimuli videos. Table 2 presents the characteristics of actions parameters in the personal and social condition. As expected, significant differences were obtained in the 3D motion kinematics between personal and social trials for many motor parameters and especially those that will be manipulated, i.e., RT and MT of the first element of the motor sequence (MT1).Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgAugust 2015 | Volume 6 | ArticleLewkowicz et al.Reading social intention in kinematicsTABLE 2 | Mean kinematic parameters of the preparatory action for both the personal and the social trials. RT * Personal intention Social intention Median values Frequency of personal trials > median Frequency of social trials > median 395 438 408 5/15 10/15 590 618 599 9/15 6/15 APV1 APV2 * 529 487 509 11/15 5/15 MT1 ** 417 451 438 4/15 11/15 501 475 485 9/15 7/15 58 63 61 6/15 9/15 MT2 APH1 APH2 ** 58 65 63 4/15 11/The asterisks revealed the parameters for which significant differences were found between the two distributions in the personal and the social conditions using the median test (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01).In order to control for the amount of temporal and kinematic information available to participants, we used post-recording modification of the videos. This manipulation led to creation of three types of stimuli. Indeed, depending on the condition, the stimuli that were displayed could be the original video clips (RT + MT1 deviant), video clips normalized according to RTs (MT1 deviant) or video clips normalized according to the end of the grasping action (No deviant). The modification of each video clip was achieved on-line as follows. First, the mean of the parameters that needed to be homogenized was calculated across all trials (social and personal). Second, the video clips were displayed at an overall refreshment rate so that the display time of this parameter corresponded to the mean pre-determined value. For example, in the MT1 deviant condition, the parameter that needed to be homogenized was the RT. Thus, using the kinematic data, a deviance ratio was calculated for the section of the video clip corresponding to.