Literature DB >> 17042792

Bottom-up, not top-down, modulation of imitation by human and robotic models.

Clare Press1, Helge Gillmeister, Cecilia Heyes.   

Abstract

Visual observation of human actions provokes more motor activation than observation of robotic actions. We investigated the extent to which this visuomotor priming effect is mediated by bottom-up or top-down processing. The bottom-up hypothesis suggests that robotic movements are less effective in activating the 'mirror system' via pathways from visual areas via the superior temporal sulcus to parietal and premotor cortices. The top-down hypothesis postulates that beliefs about the animacy of a movement stimulus modulate mirror system activity via descending pathways from areas such as the temporal pole and prefrontal cortex. In an automatic imitation task, subjects performed a prespecified movement (e.g. hand opening) on presentation of a human or robotic hand making a compatible (opening) or incompatible (closing) movement. The speed of responding on compatible trials, compared with incompatible trials, indexed visuomotor priming. In the first experiment, robotic stimuli were constructed by adding a metal and wire 'wrist' to a human hand. Questionnaire data indicated that subjects believed these movements to be less animate than those of the human stimuli but the visuomotor priming effects of the human and robotic stimuli did not differ. In the second experiment, when the robotic stimuli were more angular and symmetrical than the human stimuli, human movements elicited more visuomotor priming than the robotic movements. However, the subjects' beliefs about the animacy of the stimuli did not affect their performance. These results suggest that bottom-up processing is primarily responsible for the visuomotor priming advantage of human stimuli.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17042792     DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.05115.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Neurosci        ISSN: 0953-816X            Impact factor:   3.386


  17 in total

Review 1.  How does visuomotor priming differ for biological and non-biological stimuli? A review of the evidence.

Authors:  E Gowen; E Poliakoff
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-07

2.  Grasp cueing and joint attention.

Authors:  Nadja Tschentscher; Martin H Fischer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-08-20       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Perceiving nonverbal behavior: neural correlates of processing movement fluency and contingency in dyadic interactions.

Authors:  Alexandra L Georgescu; Bojana Kuzmanovic; Natacha S Santos; Ralf Tepest; Gary Bente; Marc Tittgemeyer; Kai Vogeley
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Fronto-parietal coding of goal-directed actions performed by artificial agents.

Authors:  Aleksandra Kupferberg; Marco Iacoboni; Virginia Flanagin; Markus Huber; Anna Kasparbauer; Thomas Baumgartner; Gregor Hasler; Florian Schmidt; Christoph Borst; Stefan Glasauer
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  Visible skin disease symptoms of another person reduce automatic imitation of their hand movements.

Authors:  Matthias Burkard Aulbach; Ville Johannes Harjunen; Michiel Spapé
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-09-23

6.  Sensorimotor experience enhances automatic imitation of robotic action.

Authors:  Clare Press; Helge Gillmeister; Cecilia Heyes
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-10-22       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Attentional demands of movement observation as tested by a dual task approach.

Authors:  Cinthia M Saucedo Marquez; Tanja Ceux; Nicole Wenderoth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Social top-down response modulation (STORM): a model of the control of mimicry in social interaction.

Authors:  Yin Wang; Antonia F de C Hamilton
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-04       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Effects of agency on movement interference during observation of a moving dot stimulus.

Authors:  James Stanley; Emma Gowen; R Chris Miall
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  The shaping of social perception by stimulus and knowledge cues to human animacy.

Authors:  Emily S Cross; Richard Ramsey; Roman Liepelt; Wolfgang Prinz; Antonia F de C Hamilton
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 6.237

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.