## 4 Discussion  
Tracking the visual gaze of human subjects while they were actively engaged in an embodied learning task of a physical concept (angular velocity) revealed that the subjects tended to look substantially ahead of the moving group. In contrast, these subjects did not tend to look ahead of the moving group when they were passively watching the moving group. Since the subjects were free to move their entire body, the visual gaze was determined by a superposition of the body, head, and eye movements. Looking ahead of a moving object is not a novel finding. It is known that eye movements usually precede hand movements [68]. For example, people tend to look ahead of a rotating clock arm [57, 58], and eye movements can precede hand movements in natural tasks such as mountaineering [59]. In addition, predictive responses are found even in single cells [53]. Such behavior is typically referred to as a predictive behavior [49, 51, 54]. Yet, the finding of looking ahead while actively performing the _collective circular exercise_ was unexpected. First, the people who previously performed this task, including the instructor of the current study, were unaware of this phenomenon. Second, in their verbal reports, all the subjects reported looking at each other so as to synchronize their movements in the exercise, and not looking ahead. This disparity between what the subjects verbally reported looking at and what they actually looked at might be explained by the observation that people do not necessarily look at what they are attending to [69]. It could be that our subjects reported what they were attending to, and not where they were looking. How might looking ahead be related to embodied learning? Our interpretation of looking ahead behavior corresponds with the predictive interpretation mentioned above, and takes it one step further. The predictive interpretation maintains that our motor actions are attuned to meeting the relevant sensory inputs at the right time, taking into consideration the time delays involved in the relevant sensory-motor loop. We adopt this interpretation within a general interpretation of closed-loop perception (CLP) [63]. In our general scheme, sensory and motor processes are equal partners in a circular motor-sensory process that underlies perception. Importantly, perception is not a sensory process. Rather, it is the phenomenon emerging from an ongoing circular process, in which sensory events predict motor events and motor events predict sensory events. In this regard, it is interesting to examine the closed-loop interpretation of our finding that looking ahead occurs during active, but not passive, participation in a task. In the framework of CLP, this finding suggests that performing an active task requires interactions between different loops (the oculomotor and locomotion loops), and that such interactions are slow, while the passive task involves only one sensory-motor loop--the oculomotor one. Indeed, predictive oculomotor delays are in the order of tens of milliseconds, Indeed, predictive oculomotor delays are in the order of 50 milliseconds; during such a delay, no member of the rotating group moved more than 3 cm. Previous studies on mathematics and physics education have shown that eye tracking is particularly beneficial for studying processes rather than outcomes [34, 42]. Specifically, previous studies have indicated the importance of intersubjective sensorimotor coordination [41], a dynamic coordination between individual perception-action systems [70, 71]. Our results add an additional angle to this line of studies. Assuming that each individual perceives her or his environment via an array of closed-loop motor-sensory circuits (CLP, [63]), dynamic intersubjective coordination is further assumed to form an extension of such motor-sensory loops to the intersubjective level. That is, the completion of a motor sensory cycle in each individual now also depends on the sensory information collected about the dynamics of the group.