Behaviorally-relevant features of observed actions dominate cortical representational geometry in natural vision

Abstract We effortlessly extract behaviorally relevant information from dynamic visual input to understand the actions of others. Here, we compare behavioral judgments of action meaning against other models capturing semantic and visual features. We measured brain activity using fMRI while participants viewed 90 video clips depicting social and nonsocial actions in real-world contexts. Using arrangement tasks, we developed two behavioral models capturing judgments of action meaning (transitive purpose, social content), as well as three control models capturing judgments of visual content (people, objects, scene). We compared these models with semantic models based on word embeddings and visual models based on gaze and motion energy. Behavioral models of action meaning outperformed models of visual content, semantics, and low-level visual features across much of cortex. Transitivity and sociality captured large portions of unique variance throughout the action observation network, extending into regions not typically associated with action perception, such as ventral temporal cortex.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Communications
Published
2026-09-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-76599-w
Primary Topic
Action Observation and Synchronization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Behaviorally-relevant features of observed actions dominate cortical representational geometry in natural vision

Rebecca Philip, James V. Haxby, Samuel A. Nastase, Yaroslav O. Halchenko et al.
Nature Communications
Action Observation and Synchronization
article

Behaviorally-relevant features of observed actions dominate cortical representational geometry in natural vision

Rebecca Philip, James V. Haxby, Samuel A. Nastase, Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Heejung Jung, Vassiki Chauhan, Morgan Taylor, Jane Han, M. Ida Gobbini
article en

Abstract

Abstract We effortlessly extract behaviorally relevant information from dynamic visual input to understand the actions of others. Here, we compare behavioral judgments of action meaning against other models capturing semantic and visual features. We measured brain activity using fMRI while participants viewed 90 video clips depicting social and nonsocial actions in real-world contexts. Using arrangement tasks, we developed two behavioral models capturing judgments of action meaning (transitive purpose, social content), as well as three control models capturing judgments of visual content (people, objects, scene). We compared these models with semantic models based on word embeddings and visual models based on gaze and motion energy. Behavioral models of action meaning outperformed models of visual content, semantics, and low-level visual features across much of cortex. Transitivity and sociality captured large portions of unique variance throughout the action observation network, extending into regions not typically associated with action perception, such as ventral temporal cortex.

Nature Communications
Dartmouth College (US), University of Southern California (US), University of Bologna (IT)
National Science Foundation, National Institute of Mental Health
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Action Observation and Synchronization
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Behaviorally-relevant features of observed actions dominate cortical representational geometry in natural vision — Rebecca Philip, James V. Haxby, et al. · Nature Communications (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS