Time course analyses confirm independence of imitative and spatial compatibility.

Imitative compatibility, or automatic imitation, has been used as a measure of imitative performance and as a behavioral index of the functioning of the human mirror system (e.g., Brass, Bekkering, Wohlschlager, & Prinz, 2000; Heyes, Bird, Johnson, & Haggard, 2005; Kilner, Paulignan, & Blakemore, 2003). However, the use of imitative compatibility as a measure of imitation has been criticized on the grounds that imitative compatibility has been confounded with simple spatial compatibility (Aicken, Wilson, Williams, & Mon-Williams, 2007; Bertenthal, Longo, & Kosobud, 2006; Jansson, Wilson, Williams, & Mon-Williams, 2007). Two experiments are reported in which, in contrast with previous studies, imitative compatibility was measured on both spatially compatible and spatially incompatible trials, and imitative compatibility was shown to be present regardless of spatial compatibility. Additional features of the experiments allowed measurement of the time courses of the imitative and spatial compatibility effects both within and across trials. It was found that imitative compatibility follows a different time course from spatial compatibility, providing further evidence for their independence and supporting the use of imitative compatibility as a measure of imitation.

[1]  E. Kandel,et al.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Annual subject and author indexes. , 1990, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  J. Mazziotta,et al.  Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. , 1999, Science.

[3]  Marcel Brass,et al.  Through the looking glass: counter‐mirror activation following incompatible sensorimotor learning , 2008, The European journal of neuroscience.

[4]  C. Heyes,et al.  Sensorimotor experience enhances automatic imitation of robotic action , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  S. Vogt,et al.  Visuomotor priming by pictures of hand postures: perspective matters , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Activation of human primary motor cortex during action observation: a neuromagnetic study. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  M. Zorzi,et al.  The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  HighWire Press.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

[9]  Matthew R Longo,et al.  Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Luciano Fadiga,et al.  Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[11]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Understanding motor events: a neurophysiological study , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  G Aschersleben,et al.  Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  W. Prinz,et al.  Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. , 2001, Acta psychologica.

[14]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  W. Prinz,et al.  Compatibility between Observed and Executed Finger Movements: Comparing Symbolic, Spatial, and Imitative Cues , 2000, Brain and Cognition.

[16]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Action recognition in the premotor cortex. , 1996, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[17]  R. Ratcliff.  Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  Matthew R Longo,et al.  Automatic imitation of biomechanically possible and impossible actions: effects of priming movements versus goals. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  C. Heyes,et al.  What Is the Significance of Imitation in Animals , 2000 .

[20]  A. Hamilton,et al.  Interference effect of observed human movement on action is due to velocity profile of biological motion , 2007, Social neuroscience.

[21]  Marcel Brass,et al.  What is matched in direct matching? Intention attribution modulates motor priming. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  Andrew D. Wilson,et al.  Methodological problems undermine tests of the ideo-motor conjecture , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  Rob Ellis,et al.  Precision and power grip priming by observed grasping , 2007, Brain and Cognition.

[24]  Marcel Brass,et al.  Experience-based priming of body parts: A study of action imitation , 2008, Brain Research.

[25]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[26]  C. Heyes,et al.  Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[27]  Caroline Catmur,et al.  Associative sequence learning: the role of experience in the development of imitation and the mirror system , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  Mark Mon-Williams,et al.  Methodological issues in measures of imitative reaction times , 2007, Brain and Cognition.

[29]  B. Hommel.  Spontaneous decay of response-code activation , 1994, Psychological research.

[30]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Motor facilitation following action observation: A behavioural study in prehensile action , 2003, Brain and Cognition.

[31]  J. Mazziotta,et al.  The essential role of Broca's area in imitation , 2003, The European journal of neuroscience.

[32]  Cecilia Heyes,et al.  Bottom‐up, not top‐down, modulation of imitation by human and robotic models , 2006, The European journal of neuroscience.

[33]  T. Sejnowski,et al.  Brain and cognition , 1989 .

[34]  C. Heyes,et al.  Experience modulates automatic imitation. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[35]  Bennett I. Bertenthal,et al.  Attention modulates the specificity of automatic imitation to human actors , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[36]  B Hommel,et al.  The role of attention for the Simon effect , 1993, Psychological research.

[37]  A. Osman,et al.  Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. , 1990, Psychological review.

[38]  C. Umilta,et al.  Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[39]  Caroline Catmur,et al.  Sensorimotor Learning Configures the Human Mirror System , 2007, Current Biology.

[40]  Yang Seok Cho,et al.  Influences of multiple spatial stimulus and response codes on orthogonal stimulus—response compatibility , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[41]  C. Heyes,et al.  Intact automatic imitation of human and robot actions in autism spectrum disorders , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[42]  Y. Paulignan,et al.  An Interference Effect of Observed Biological Movement on Action , 2003, Current Biology.

[43]  C. Heyes,et al.  Imitation in infancy: the wealth of the stimulus. , 2011, Developmental science.

[44]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[45]  J. Mazziotta,et al.  Mirror neuron system: basic findings and clinical applications , 2007, Annals of neurology.