Movement imitation is a significant daily activity involved in social interaction and motor learning. Although imitation remains poorly understood, recent research suggests that it may be achieved in two distinct ways. In posture-based imitation, movements reproduce how the body should look and feel, and are sensitive to the relative positioning of body parts. In trajectory imitation, movements mimic the spatiotemporal motion path of the end effector. We hypothesized that people can imitate via either mechanism. If true, we would expect to see a switch cost when individuals change from one mechanism to the other. To test this, twenty-five healthy young adults performed a sequential multitasking imitation task. Participants were first instructed to pay attention to the limb postures or the hand path of a video-recorded model. They next performed an intervening motor task that was neutral, congruent, or incongruent with the instructed imitation type. Finally, participants imitated the modeled movement. Spatiotemporal imitation accuracy was greatest after a neutral intervening task, and worst after posture matching. When the primary task involved imitating trajectories, we observed a switch cost: movements following the posture-matching intervening task were less consistent with baseline (neutral) performance, suggesting performance was disrupted by the incongruence. Incongruent primary and intervening tasks also reduced cross-subject consistency. Such effects were not observed when imitating limb postures. In summary, we observed a partial dissociation between posture matching and trajectory imitation as a result of instructions and intervening tasks that is nevertheless consistent with the existence of two computationally distinct imitation mechanisms.
When faced with multiple potential movement options, individuals either reach directly to one of the options, or initiate a reach intermediate between the options. It remains unclear why people generate these two types of behaviors. Using the go-before-you-know task (commonly used to study behavior under choice uncertainty) in humans, we examined two key questions. First, do these two types of responses actually reflect distinct movement strategies? If so, the relative desirability (i.e., weighing the success likelihood vs the attainable reward) of the two target options would not need to be computed identically for direct and intermediate reaches. We showed that indeed, when reward and success likelihood differed between the two options, reach direction was preferentially biased toward different directions for direct versus intermediate reaches. Importantly, this suggests that the computation of subjective values depends on the choice of movement strategy. Second, what drives individual differences in how people respond under uncertainty? We found that risk/reward-seeking individuals tended to generate more intermediate reaches and were more responsive to changes in reward, suggesting these movements may reflect a strategy to maximize reward versus success. Together, these findings suggest that when faced with choice uncertainty, individuals adopt movement strategies consistent with their risk/reward attitude, preferentially biasing behavior toward exogenous rewards or endogenous success and consequently modulating the relative desirability of the available options.
The ability to imitate observed actions serves as an efficient method for learning novel movements and is specifically impaired (without concomitant gross motor impairments) in the neurological disorder of limb apraxia, a disorder common after left hemisphere stroke. Research with apraxic patients has advanced our understanding of how people imitate. However, the role of proprioception in imitation has been rarely assessed directly. Prior work has proposed that proprioceptively sensed body position is transformed into a visual format, supporting the attainment of a desired imitation goal represented visually (i.e., how the movement should look when performed). In contrast, we hypothesized a more direct role for proprioception: we suggest that movement goals are also represented proprioceptively (i.e., how a desired movement should feel when performed), and that the ability to represent or access such proprioceptive goals is deficient in apraxia. Using a novel imitation task in which a robot cued meaningless trajectories purely proprioceptively or visually, we separately probed the role of each sensory modality. We found that patients with left hemisphere stroke were disproportionately worse than controls at imitating when cued proprioceptively versus visually. The proprioceptive versus visual disparity was associated with apraxia severity as assessed by a traditional imitation task, but could not be explained by general proprioceptive impairment or speed-accuracy trade-offs. These data suggest that successful imitation depends in part on the ability to represent movement goals in terms of how those movements should feel, and that deficits in this ability contribute to imitation impairments in patients with apraxia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.