Exp Brain Res (2011) 211:531–545 Fig. 5 Upper graph Schematic illustration of two subsequent trials where participants saw the ﬁrst stimulus of the pair in the preceding trial from a ﬁrst- person perspective (leftmost picture). Lower graph Schematic drawing of two subsequent trials where participants saw the ﬁrst stimulus of the pair in the preceding trial from a third- person perspective (leftmost picture) Methods Participants Twenty-two undergraduate students (mean age 22 years; 17 women; 2 left-handed) participated in the experiment and received course credits or payment for participation. All of them reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision and signed informed consent prior to the experiment. Stimuli and procedure These were the same as in experiment 1, except that par- ticipants were assigned to a confederate. Design Results This was the same as in experiment 1, with the following exception. In order to investigate the effect of initial hand perspective in the directly preceding trial, the orientation of the initial hand was manipulated and participants’ respon- ses in the subsequent trial was analysed (see Fig. 5). In the trials directly following the ‘orientation–manipulation–tri- als’, the initial hand picture was always seen from the participant’s ﬁrst-person perspective, as only this condition was of interest for the analysis. We employed a 2 (orien- tation in preceding trial) 9 2 (attention condition) factorial design and analysed slopes and intercepts. One participant was excluded due to error rates that were more than two SDs above the average (8%). 541 Reaction times Overall, there was a signiﬁcant increase in RTs with increasing level of rotation [t(20) = 8.6, p \ .001]. No main effects of preceding trial [F(1, 20) = 2.9, p [ .1] or attention [F(1, 20) \ 1] were found. However, there was a signiﬁcant two-way interaction of attention and preceding trial [F(1, 20) = 8.7, p \ .01]. This was due to a signiﬁ- cant ﬂattening of the slope in the joint-attention condition when the preceding trial showed the initial hand picture from a third-person perspective [t(20) = 2.3, p \ .05] and no such effect when the preceding trial showed the initial hand picture from a ﬁrst-person perspective [t(20) = 1.4, p [ .1; see Fig. 6]. Analysis of intercepts did not reveal a signiﬁcant main effect of preceding trial [F(1, 20) \ 1]. Attention had a marginally signiﬁcant effect on intercepts [F(1, 20) = 4.0, p = .058], due to faster responses to non-rotated stimuli in the single-attention condition. The two-way interaction of preceding trial and attention was signiﬁcant [F(1, 20) = 4.8, p \ .05]. RTs were slower in the joint condition when the preceding trial showed the initial hand picture from a third-person perspective [t(20) = 3.0, p \ .01]. RTs were unaffected when the preceding trial showed the initial hand picture from a ﬁrst-person perspective [t(20) \ 1]. Intercepts and slopes are summarized in Table 1. Exclusion of 180 data RTs increased signiﬁcantly with increasing angle of rota- tion [t(20) = 9.9, p \ .001]. The factors preceding trial [F(1, 20) = 1.3, p = .26] and attention condition [F(1, 20) = 2.0, p = .18] were not signiﬁcant. Slopes were 123