Automatic versus Voluntary Motor Imitation: Effect of Visual Context and Stimulus Velocity

Automatic imitation is the tendency to reproduce observed actions involutarily. Though this topic has been widely treated, at present little is known about the automatic imitation of the kinematic features of an observed movement. The present study was designed to understand if the kinematics of a previously seen stimulus primes the executed action, and if this effect is sensitive to the kinds of stimuli presented. We proposed a simple imitation paradigm in which a dot or a human demonstrator moved in front of the participant who was instructed either to reach the final position of the stimulus or to imitate its motion with his or her right arm. Participants' movements were automatically contaminated by stimulus velocity when it moved according to biological laws, suggesting that automatic imitation was kinematic dependent. Despite that the performance, in term of reproduced velocity, improved in a context of voluntary imitation, subjects did not replicate the observed motions exactly. These effects were not affected by the kind of stimuli used, i.e., motor responses were influenced in the same manner after dot or human observation. These findings support the existence of low-level sensory-motor matching mechanisms that work on movement planning and represent the basis for higher levels of social interaction.

[1]  A. Meltzoff,et al.  Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates , 1977, Science.

[2]  T. Flash,et al.  The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model , 1985, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[3]  T D Albright,et al.  Visual motion perception. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[5]  Daniel M. Wolpert,et al.  Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning , 1998, Nature.

[6]  Charalambos Papaxanthis,et al.  Effects of movement direction upon kinematic characteristics of vertical arm pointing movements in man , 1998, Neuroscience Letters.

[7]  R. Byrne,et al.  Priming primates: Human and otherwise , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

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

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

[11]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

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

[13]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  K. Doya,et al.  A unifying computational framework for motor control and social interaction. , 2003, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[15]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Action generation and action perception in imitation: an instance of the ideomotor principle. , 2003, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[16]  U. Castiello.  Understanding other people's actions: intention and attention. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[18]  P. Morasso.  Spatial control of arm movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  S Hurley,et al.  Perspectives on Imitation , 2004 .

[20]  W. Prinz.  An ideomotor approach to imitation , 2005 .

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

[22]  Maggie Shiffrar,et al.  Walking perception by walking observers. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  T. Pozzo,et al.  Kinematic features of movement tunes perception and action coupling , 2006, Behavioural Brain Research.

[24]  M. Shiffrar,et al.  Fitts's Law Holds for Action Perception , 2007, Psychological science.

[25]  James Stanley,et al.  Effects of Agency on Movement Interference During Observation of a Moving Dot Stimulus , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[27]  L. Boroditsky,et al.  Time in the mind: Using space to think about time , 2008, Cognition.

[28]  Jean-Paul Gauthier,et al.  The Inactivation Principle: Mathematical Solutions Minimizing the Absolute Work and Biological Implications for the Planning of Arm Movements , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[29]  John E. Schlerf,et al.  Dedicated and intrinsic models of time perception , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  C. Heyes,et al.  Automatic imitation of intransitive actions , 2008, Brain and Cognition.

[31]  Katsumi Watanabe,et al.  Behavioral speed contagion: Automatic modulation of movement timing by observation of body movements , 2008, Cognition.

[32]  J. Mattingley,et al.  The role of selective attention in matching observed and executed actions , 2009, Neuropsychologia.

[33]  Andrea Tacchino,et al.  Spontaneous movement tempo is influenced by observation of rhythmical actions , 2009, Brain Research Bulletin.

[34]  Tamar Flash,et al.  Simple movement imitation: Are kinematic features sufficient to map perceptions into actions? , 2009, Brain and Cognition.