Literature DB >> 22326448

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

Ty W Boyer1, Matthew R Longo, Bennett I Bertenthal.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22326448     DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)        ISSN: 0001-6918


  14 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Dynamic emotional expressions do not modulate responses to gestures.

Authors:  Harry Farmer; Raqeeb Mahmood; Samantha E A Gregory; Polina Tishina; Antonia F de C Hamilton
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2020-12-10

4.  Reaction Time "Mismatch Costs" Change with the Likelihood of Stimulus-Response Compatibility.

Authors:  Megan E J Campbell; Chase S Sherwell; Ross Cunnington; Scott Brown; Michael Breakspear
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-08-25

Review 5.  Social Action Effects: Representing Predicted Partner Responses in Social Interactions.

Authors:  Bence Neszmélyi; Lisa Weller; Wilfried Kunde; Roland Pfister
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 3.473

6.  To throw or to place: does onward intention affect how a child reaches for an object?

Authors:  Kate Wilmut; Maia Byrne; Anna L Barnett
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Adaptive changes in automatic motor responses based on acquired visuomotor correspondence.

Authors:  Yoshihiro Itaguchi; Kazuyoshi Fukuzawa
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  The Effect of Money Priming on Self-Focus in the Imitation-Inhibition Task.

Authors:  Oliver Genschow; Johannes Schuler; Emiel Cracco; Marcel Brass; Michaela Wänke
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2019-11

9.  Imitation or Polarity Correspondence? Behavioural and Neurophysiological Evidence for the Confounding Influence of Orthogonal Spatial Compatibility on Measures of Automatic Imitation.

Authors:  Kristína Czekóová; Daniel Joel Shaw; Martin Lamoš; Beáta Špiláková; Miguel Salazar; Milan Brázdil
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  Investigating ideomotor cognition with motorvisual priming paradigms: key findings, methodological challenges, and future directions.

Authors:  Roland Thomaschke
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-11-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.