In Praise of a Model but Not Its Conclusions: Commentary on Cooper, Catmur, and Heyes (2012)

Cooper et al. (this issue) develop an interactive activation model of spatial and imitative compatibilities that simulates the key results from Catmur and Heyes (2011) and thus conclude that both compatibilities are mediated by the same processes since their single model can predict all the results. Although the model is impressive, the conclusions are premature because they are based on an incomplete review of the relevant literature and because the model includes some questionable assumptions. Moreover, a competing model (Scheutz & Bertenthal, 2012) is introduced that suggests the two compatibilities are not mediated by the same processes. We propose that more research is necessary before concluding that spatial and imitative compatibilities are mediated by the same processes.

[1]  S. Kornblum,et al.  A Parallel Distributed Processing Model of Stimulus–Stimulus and Stimulus–Response Compatibility , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[3]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

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

[5]  Caroline Catmur,et al.  Are Automatic Imitation and Spatial Compatibility Mediated by Different Processes? , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

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

[7]  Ty W. Boyer,et al.  Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus-response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[8]  T. Chartrand,et al.  Chapter 5 Human Mimicry , 2009 .

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

[10]  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.

[11]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

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

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

[14]  A. Hamilton,et al.  Eye contact enhances mimicry of intransitive hand movements , 2011, Biology Letters.

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

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

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

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

[19]  Matthias Scheutz,et al.  A Computational PDP Model for Explaining Automatic Imitation , 2012, CogSci.

[20]  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 .

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

[22]  The perceived self: A theory of representation-driven actions , 1994 .

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

[24]  Vittorio Gallese,et al.  31 Cortical Mechanisms Subserving Object Grasping, Action Understanding, and Imitation , 2004 .

[25]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

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

[27]  Antonia F. de C. Hamilton,et al.  Social top-down response modulation (STORM): a model of the control of mimicry in social interaction , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

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

[29]  H Pashler,et al.  How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. , 2000, Psychological review.