Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus-response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities.

In recent years research on automatic imitation has received considerable attention because it represents an experimental platform for investigating a number of interrelated theories suggesting that the perception of action automatically activates corresponding motor programs. A key debate within this research centers on whether automatic imitation is any different than other long-term S-R associations, such as spatial stimulus-response compatibility. One approach to resolving this issue is to examine whether automatic imitation shows similar response characteristics as other classes of stimulus-response compatibility. This hypothesis was tested by comparing imitative and spatial compatibility effects with a two alternative forced-choice stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. The stimulus on each trial was a left or right hand with either the index or middle finger tapping down. Speeded responses were performed with the index or middle finger of the right hand in response to the identity or the left-right spatial position of the stimulus finger. Two different tasks were administered: one that involved responding to the stimulus (S-R) and one that involved responding to the opposite stimulus (OS-R; i.e., the one not presented on that trial). Based on previous research and a connectionist model, we predicted standard compatibility effects for both spatial and imitative compatibility in the S-R task, and a reverse compatibility effect for spatial compatibility, but not for imitative compatibility, in the OS-R task. The results from the mean response times, mean percentage of errors, and response time distributions all converged to support these predictions. A second noteworthy result was that the recoding of the finger identity in the OS-R task required significantly more time than the recoding of the left-right spatial position, but the encoding time for the two stimuli in the S-R task was equivalent. In sum, this evidence suggests that the processing of spatial and imitative compatibility is dissociable with regard to two different processes in dual processing models of stimulus-response compatibility.

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

[2]  W. Prinz.  Perception and Action Planning , 1997 .

[3]  E. Lauber,et al.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Marcel Brass,et al.  Does the Human Motor System Simulate Pinocchio's Actions? , 2007, Psychological science.

[5]  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.

[6]  G. Sandini,et al.  The mirror-neurons system: data and models. , 2007, Progress in brain research.

[7]  Paul E. Downing,et al.  Learning associations between action and perception: Effects of incompatible training on body part and spatial priming , 2011, Brain and Cognition.

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

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

[10]  H. Bekkering,et al.  Understanding action beyond imitation: reversed compatibility effects of action observation in imitation and joint action. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

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

[14]  T. Chartrand,et al.  The Chameleon Effect as Social Glue: Evidence for the Evolutionary Significance of Nonconscious Mimicry , 2003 .

[15]  A. Woodward,et al.  Do as I do: 7-month-old infants selectively reproduce others' goals. , 2008, Developmental science.

[16]  J C Mazziotta,et al.  Reafferent copies of imitated actions in the right superior temporal cortex , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Cecilia Heyes,et al.  Spatial S-R compatibility effects in an intentional imitation task , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  M. Ferguson,et al.  Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  Logical recoding of S-R rules can reverse the effects of spatial S-R correspondence , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[20]  T Hasbroucq,et al.  Stimulus-response compatibility and the Simon effect: toward a conceptual clarification. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. , 1970, Psychological review.

[22]  Wolfgang Prinz,et al.  When do we simulate non-human agents? Dissociating communicative and non-communicative actions , 2010, Cognition.

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

[24]  J. R. Simon,et al.  Reactions toward the source of stimulation. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  J. Richard Simon,et al.  The effect of an irrelevant directional cue on choice reaction time: Duration of the phenomenon and its relation to stages of processing , 1976 .

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

[27]  J R Simon,et al.  Effect of conflicting cues on information processing: the 'Stroop effect' vs. the 'Simon effect'. , 1990, Acta psychologica.

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

[29]  Caroline Catmur,et al.  Time course analyses confirm independence of imitative and spatial compatibility. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  D. Perrett,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.8 No.11 November 2004 Demystifying social cognition: a Hebbian perspective , 2022 .

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

[32]  J R Simon,et al.  Effect of Compatibility of S-R Mapping on Reactions toward the Stimulus Source , 1979, Acta psychologica.

[33]  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.

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

[35]  Aude Billard,et al.  Parallel and distributed neural models of the ideomotor principle: An investigation of imitative cortical pathways , 2006, Neural Networks.

[36]  S. Hurley.  The shared circuits model (SCM): how control, mirroring, and simulation can enable imitation, deliberation, and mindreading. , 2008, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[37]  Marcel Brass,et al.  Top-down modulation of motor priming by belief about animacy. , 2010, Experimental psychology.

[38]  W. James,et al.  The Principles of Psychology. , 1983 .

[39]  M. Brass,et al.  Imitation: is cognitive neuroscience solving the correspondence problem? , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[40]  E. Lauber,et al.  Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[41]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  The mirror-neuron system. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

[42]  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.

[43]  J. Decety,et al.  From the perception of action to the understanding of intention , 2001, Nature reviews. Neuroscience.

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

[45]  P. Bucy.  FRONTAL LOBE OF PRIMATES: RELATION OF CYTO-ARCHITECTURE TO FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITY , 1935 .

[46]  James D. Miles,et al.  Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[48]  Ty W. Boyer,et al.  Dissociating Ideomotor and Spatial Compatibility: Empirical Evidence and Connectionist Models , 2009 .

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

[50]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  Display-control arrangement correspondence and logical recoding in the Hedge and Marsh reversal of the Simon effect. , 2003, Acta psychologica.

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

[52]  M. Jeannerod.  The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[53]  J R Simon,et al.  Auditory S-R compatibility: reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[54]  U. Castiello,et al.  The Human Premotor Cortex Is 'Mirror' Only for Biological Actions , 2004, Current Biology.

[55]  E. Procyk,et al.  Brain activity during observation of actions. Influence of action content and subject's strategy. , 1997, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[56]  A. Hedge,et al.  The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. , 1975, Acta psychologica.

[57]  C. Heyes.  Automatic imitation. , 2011, Psychological bulletin.

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

[59]  P. Fletcher,et al.  Seeing other minds: attributed mental states influence perception , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.