Literature DB >> 30219745

What are reaction time indices of automatic imitation measuring?

Richard Ramsey1.   

Abstract

Humans unintentionally copy other people's gestures, postures and speech patterns. This behaviour has been termed 'automatic imitation', and is thought to play a crucial role in the development of social relationships by building affiliation and rapport between interaction partners. The current paper critically evaluates reaction time measures of automatic imitation and demonstrates that it is currently unclear what reaction time indices measure, due to a lack of research assessing dimensions of validity and domain-specificity. Based on this assessment of the literature, three suggestions are made for future research. First, studies that assess the validity of reaction time paradigms as an index of automatic imitation are required. That is, the extent that processes involved in reaction time measures of automatic imitation also operate in real-world copying behaviours needs firmly establishing. Second, the extent that component processes of automatic imitation rely on domain-specific, domain-general or a combination of both types of cognitive system needs establishing. Moreover, theories of imitation that move beyond neat divisions between domain-specific and domain-general systems should be prioritised. Third, a case is made for why methodological rigour requires far more emphasis in order to support the development of a cumulative science of automatic imitation. In sum, by providing a critical review of the current literature, as well as suggesting new directions for research questions, theories and methods, this paper aims to stimulate discussion regarding optimal approaches to studying automatic imitation. Moreover, the analysis and recommendations presented here generalise to other domains of social cognition, such as gaze perception and perspective taking, which also rely on similar reaction time paradigms.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Automatic imitation; Domain-specificity; Reaction time measures; Social cognition; Validity

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30219745     DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conscious Cogn        ISSN: 1053-8100


  10 in total

1.  Fluid intelligence and working memory support dissociable aspects of learning by physical but not observational practice.

Authors:  Dace Apšvalka; Emily S Cross; Richard Ramsey
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2019-05-14

2.  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

3.  The Dynamic Differences between Self- and Other-Oriented Mental Inferences: An ERP Study on a False-Belief Task.

Authors:  Xieshun Wang; Yanjie Su; Min Hong
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2021-04-27       Impact factor: 3.282

4.  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

5.  The influence of prosocial priming on visual perspective taking and automatic imitation.

Authors:  Rachel Newey; Kami Koldewyn; Richard Ramsey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Intentional synchronisation affects automatic imitation and source memory.

Authors:  Liam Cross; Gray Atherton; Natalie Sebanz
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  A neural signature for combined action observation and motor imagery? An fNIRS study into prefrontal activation, automatic imitation, and self-other perceptions.

Authors:  Jonathan R Emerson; Matthew W Scott; Paul van Schaik; Natalie Butcher; Ryan P W Kenny; Daniel L Eaves
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 2.708

8.  Joint action goals reduce visuomotor interference effects from a partner's incongruent actions.

Authors:  Sam Clarke; Luke McEllin; Anna Francová; Marcell Székely; Stephen A Butterfill; John Michael
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Smaller Than Expected.

Authors:  Carina G Giesen; Laura Nagel; Matthäus Rudolph; Klaus Rothermund
Journal:  Exp Psychol       Date:  2021-08-10

10.  Group membership does not modulate automatic imitation.

Authors:  Oliver Genschow; Mareike Westfal; Emiel Cracco; Jan Crusius
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-06-09
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.