oscillations was higher when vision was precluded to the receiver, the givers might plan lower placing velocities in order to quickly react to possible trunk oscillations of the receiver. Thus, we propose that a social affordance is activated when feeding a conspecific. The social request, i.e. the conspecific’s mouth aperture signaling a request to be fed, was a prerequisite for activating a social affordance. The social affordance activated by the social request to be fed influenced both the reaching and placing even when this sequence was not finalized to feed (experiments 2 and 4), i.e. in the case of not actual interaction with the conspecific’s mouth. This is in agreement with the data by Sartori and colleagues [21]. These authors studied the interference effects of a sudden presentation of a social request, i.e. the hand opening expressing ‘‘give-me-the-object’’, on the execution of a sequence directed to an inanimate final target. The social request interfered with the actual sequence by inducing a partial deviation of the hand trajectory towards the conspecific. Conversely, we studied the effects of the social request to be fed (i.e. the mouth aperture) on planning of sequences unrelated to feeding directed to inanimate (experiment 2) and animate (experiment 4) final targets. The social request was presented well in advance of sequence beginning, and the time of presentation was sufficient to remove eventual transitory effects on sequence control. The social request affected the planning of the sequence because the corresponding social affordance changed movement parameterization (i.e. modified kinematic landmarks). In other words, the social affordance was included in the planning. A possibility explaining this effect is that in experiment 2 the actual sequence resembled a feeding and its initial part was directed towards the conspecific’s body. Conversely, in experiment 4 placing the sugar lump into the conspecific’s mouth, as required by the social request, could be more natural than touching the conspecific’s forehead at the end of the actual sequence as required to the giver. Moreover, the actual sequence was not preceded by any related social request. Summing up, the congruence between the social request and the possible intentions guiding the sequence was sufficient to include the social affordance into the planning of the actual sequence. The results of experiments 5 and 6 suggest that the conspecific’s gaze is coupled with specific social requests (for example, mouth aperture requiring to be fed). This is in agreement with the data by Sartori, Becchio, Bulgheroni, & Castiello [21]. We found that the References 1. Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 47: 381–391. 2. Bootsma RJ, Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Zaal FT (1994) The speed- accuracy trade-off in manual prehension: effects of movement amplitude, object size and object width on kinematic characteristics. Exp Brain Res 98: 535–541. 3. Gentilucci M, Castiello U, Corradini ML, Scarpa M, Umilta C, et al. (1991) Influence of different types of grasping on the transport component of prehension movements. Neuropsychologia 29: 361–378. 4. Marteniuk RG, MacKenzie CL, Jeannerod M, Athenes S, Dugas C (1987) Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Can J Psychol 41: 365–378. 5. Mon-Williams M, McIntosh RD (2000) A test between two hypotheses and a possible third way for the control of prehension. Exp Brain Res 134: 268–273. 6. Johnson-Frey S, McCarty M, Keen R (2004) Reaching beyond spatial perception: effects of intended future actions on visually-guided prehension. Visual Cognition 11: 371–399. 7. Gentilucci M, Negrotti A, Gangitano M (1997) Planning an action. Exp Brain Res 115: 116–128. 8. Rosenbaum D, Jorgensen M (1992) Planning macroscopic aspects of manual control. Human Movement Science 11: 61–69. 9. Fogassi L, Ferrari PF, Gesierich B, Rozzi S, Chersi F, et al. (2005) Parietal Lobe: From Action Organization to Intention Understanding. Science 308: 662–667. 10. Barbieri F, Buonocore A, Bernardis P, Volta RD, Gentilucci M (2007) On the relations between affordance and representation of the agent’s effector. Exp Brain Res 180: 421–433. 11. Loveland K (1991) Social affordances and interaction II: autism and the affordances of the human environment. Ecological psychology 3: 99–119. Social Request and Social Affordance specific social request was ineffective if the conspecific’s gaze was precluded to the agent. On the basis of these results, we propose that the conspecific’s gaze expresses a cue [15] to indicate that the successive signalling (i.e. the request) is deliberate. The production of the signal indicates two things: first, that the person wishes to activate an interaction; second, that the successive signal (a request gesture, in the present study the mouth aperture) coupled with the gaze is relevant to the interest of the receiver [22]. When an interaction is required, this signal activates a social affordance. This, in the present study, induces an increase in movement accuracy just because the receiver implicitly requires a visual control on sequence execution. This can occur even in the case of no direct eye contact with the agent, as we found in the present study. Kilner, Marchant, and Frith [23], using magnetoenceph- alography recorded cortical activity of humans observing videos showing movements of an actor. The attenuation of the oscillatory activity during movement observation depended on whether the actor was facing towards or away from the observer. Specifically, the authors found attenuation in the pattern elicited by movement observation only when the actor was facing towards the observer. This result suggests that the effects of gesture observation are modulated by the relationships between observer and actor. In other words, even more simple automatic imitations as compared to the more complex interactions require that the conspecific gaze is available in order to be activated. In neural terms, candidates for the coding of related-to-gaze intentionality are posterior STS (Superior Temporal Sulcus) and medial prefrontal cortex (for reviews see [16,24]). This proposal is corroborated by results of single neuron recording studies in STS of monkey cortex [25]. Acknowledgments We thank Filippo Barbieri and Nicol o` Bernardi for their help in carrying out the experiments of the present study. We thank Patricia Gough for her comments on the manuscript. Author Contributions Conceived and designed the experiments: MG FF. Performed the experiments: FF GCC RDV CG MG. Analyzed the data: FF GCC RDV CG MG. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: FF GCC RDV CG MG. Wrote the paper: MG FF GCC. 12. Becchio C, Sartori L, Bulgheroni M, Castiello U (2008) The case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: a kinematic study on social intention. Conscious Cogn 17: 557–564. 13. Ferri F, Campione GC, Dalla Volta R, Gianelli C, Gentilucci M (2010) To me or to you? When the self is advantaged. Exp Brain Res 203: 637–646. 14. Gentilucci M, Scandolara C, Pigarev IN, Rizzolatti G (1983) Visual responses in the postarcuate cortex (area 6) of the monkey that are independent of eye position. Exp Brain Res 50: 464–468. 15. Frith C (2009) Role of facial expressions in social interactions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364: 3453–3458. 16. Senju A, Johnson MH (2009) The eye contact effect: mechanisms and development. Trends Cogn Sci 13: 127–134. 17. Sartori L, Becchio C, Bara BG, Castiello U (2009) Does the intention to communicate affect action kinematics? Consciousness and Cognition 18: 766–772. 18. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97–113. 19. Jeannerod M (1988) The Neural and Behavioural Organization of Goal-directed Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 20. Chieffi S, Gentilucci M (1993) Coordination between the transport and the grasp components during prehension movements. Exp Brain Res 94: 471– 477. 21. Sartori L, Becchio C, Bulgheroni M, Castiello U (2009) Modulation of the action control system by social intention: unexpected social requests override preplanned action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35: 1490–1500. 22. Sperber D, Wilson D (1995) Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 8 January 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 1 | e15855