2020
DOI: 10.1177/1362361320936945
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Continuing to look in the mirror: A review of neuroscientific evidence for the broken mirror hypothesis, EP-M model and STORM model of autism spectrum conditions

Abstract: The mirror neuron system has been argued to be a key brain system responsible for action understanding and imitation. Subsequently, mirror neuron system dysfunction has therefore been proposed to explain the social deficits manifested within autism spectrum condition, an approach referred to as the broken mirror hypothesis. Despite excitement surrounding this hypothesis, extensive research has produced insufficient evidence to support the broken mirror hypothesis in its pure form, and instead two alternative m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
18
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
(123 reference statements)
1
18
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The TD and DCD groups may have suffered from ceiling and floor effects respectively in motor scores, making it difficult to find correlations within those groups. Thus previously reported discrepancies, with some studies showing differential activity in the IFGop in ASD while others found no differences (for reviews, see Chan & Han, 2020;Yates & Hobson, 2020), may be explained by heterogeneity in motor ability across TD and ASD groups as well as within the ASD group, which prior studies did not assess. We investigated differences in IFGop activity in ASD not only when processing facial expressions, but also hand actions.…”
Section: Activity In Ifgop Correlates With Motor Ability For Socialmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The TD and DCD groups may have suffered from ceiling and floor effects respectively in motor scores, making it difficult to find correlations within those groups. Thus previously reported discrepancies, with some studies showing differential activity in the IFGop in ASD while others found no differences (for reviews, see Chan & Han, 2020;Yates & Hobson, 2020), may be explained by heterogeneity in motor ability across TD and ASD groups as well as within the ASD group, which prior studies did not assess. We investigated differences in IFGop activity in ASD not only when processing facial expressions, but also hand actions.…”
Section: Activity In Ifgop Correlates With Motor Ability For Socialmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Activity in the IFGop is involved in social cognition, emotion processing, and empathy (for reviews, see de Waal & Preston, 2017; Jeon & Lee, 2018). Interestingly, several ASD studies show differential functioning in the IFGop during imitation and/or action observation tasks compared to TD peers (Dapretto et al, 2006; Kana, Wadsworth, & Travers, 2011; Williams, 2008), though there have been discrepant findings (for reviews, see Chan & Han, 2020; Yates & Hobson, 2020). However, to date no fMRI studies have considered how motor impairment impacts IFGop activity in ASD, or if IFGop impairment is unique to ASD.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mirror neurons likely play important roles in understanding the actions of others, learning by observation (Ramsey et al, 2021), imitation (Iacoboni et al, 1999), and in motor rehabilitation (Nogueira et al, 2021; Rizzolatti et al, 2021). Furthermore, the mirror neuron system (MNS) is also strongly involved in multiple facets of social cognition, such as empathy or emotional contagion (Bekkali et al, 2021; Paz et al, 2022) and its malfunction has been reported in several neurodegenerative pathologies (Farina et al, 2020) and in autism spectrum disorders (Yates & Hobson, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While studies have reported decreased (Dapretto et al, 2006;Ramachandran & Oberman, 2006), or increased (Martineau, Andersson, Barthélémy, Cottier, & Destrieux, 2010;Wadsworth, Maximo, Donnelly, & Kana, 2018) or normal (Dinstein et al, 2010;Marsh & Hamilton, 2011) MNS activity in ASD, two meta-analyses have concluded that MNS hyperactivity is most consistently found (Chan & Han, 2020;Yang & Hofmann, 2016). It has been proposed that MNS dysfunction in ASD is mainly due to abnormal functional connectivity either within the MNS itself, such as in the IFG-STS automatic mimicry route (Hamilton, 2008), or between the MNS and other brain networks that regulate top-down control or social cognitive functions (Hamilton, 2013;Yates & Hobson, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%