Literature DB >> 20731523

Time course analyses confirm independence of imitative and spatial compatibility.

Caroline Catmur1, Cecilia Heyes.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20731523     DOI: 10.1037/a0019325

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  36 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.  Priming of hand and foot response: is spatial attention to the body site enough?

Authors:  Alison J Wiggett; Steven P Tipper
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-12

3.  Orthogonal-compatibility effects confound automatic imitation: implications for measuring self-other distinction.

Authors:  Daniel Joel Shaw; Kristína Czekóová; Michaela Porubanová
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-10-17

4.  Facilitation and interference in spatial and body reference frames.

Authors:  Alison J Wiggett; Paul E Downing; Steven P Tipper
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-11-29       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Emotional resonance deficits in autistic children.

Authors:  Alessandro Grecucci; Paolo Brambilla; Roma Siugzdaite; Danielle Londero; Franco Fabbro; Raffaella Ida Rumiati
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2013-03

6.  Interference of action perception on action production increases across the adult life span.

Authors:  Stephanie Wermelinger; Anja Gampe; Jannis Behr; Moritz M Daum
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  The limb-specific embodiment of a tool following experience.

Authors:  Kimberley Jovanov; Paul Clifton; Ali Mazalek; Michael Nitsche; Timothy N Welsh
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  The interaction between felt touch and tactile consequences of observed actions: an action-based somatosensory congruency paradigm.

Authors:  Eliane Deschrijver; Jan R Wiersema; Marcel Brass
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Controlling automatic imitative tendencies: interactions between mirror neuron and cognitive control systems.

Authors:  Katy A Cross; Salvatore Torrisi; Elizabeth A Reynolds Losin; Marco Iacoboni
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Self-other control processes in social cognition: from imitation to empathy.

Authors:  Marie de Guzman; Geoffrey Bird; Michael J Banissy; Caroline Catmur
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.