Reaction time indices of automatic imitation measure imitative response tendencies

Abstract

In his review, Ramsey (2018) argues that it is currently unclear what reaction time indices of automatic imitation measure due to lacking research on their validity and domain-specificity. In our commentary, we argue that this conclusion is based on two misconceptions, namely that automatic imitation was designed as a laboratory measure of motor mimicry and that psychometric approaches to validity can readily be applied to experimental settings. We then show that reaction time indices of automatic imitation measure covert imitative response tendencies. Furthermore, while irrelevant for validity, we argue that these indices are associated with some, but not necessarily all, types of overt imitation. Finally, we argue that mapping out the brain networks does not suffice to understand the brain processes underlying imitative control.

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

“…By demonstrating that AI can be reversed completely, the findings of this first experiment conflict with the view that AI remains present, albeit to a lesser extent, even when spatial influences are controlled (Bertenthal et al, 2006;Catmur & Heyes, 2011;Cracco & Brass, 2019). A closer inspection of the data reported by Darda et al (2018) and Marsh et al (2016) shows that AI also can be reversed by simple spatial influences; in both studies, positive AI measured in response to a left stimulus hand positioned horizontally was reversed to negative AI for a right stimulus hand, the latter of which places imitative-and simple spatial-compatibility in opposition.…”

“…Imitation refers to the execution of a body movement that is similar topographically to one observed previously or concurrently in another person (Cracco & Brass, 2019;Heyes, 2011). Driven by seminal studies (Brass, Bekkering, & Prinz, 2001;Stürmer, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2000), researchers often employ stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) procedures to investigate imitation experimentally; individuals are asked to execute actions that are the same (compatible) or different (incompatible) to those observed simultaneously in another person.…”

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

“…Second, our results also have implications for research on imitation by contributing to the current discussion on the role of social top-down influences (that are not necessarily related to self-other focus). Recently, researchers have suggested that imitation may not be as strongly modulated by certain social top-down influences as previously assumed (e.g., Cracco, Bardi, et al, 2018 ; Cracco & Brass, 2019 ; Genschow et al, 2017 ; Ramsey, 2018 ). In contrast, our carried out meta-analysis indicates that automatic imitation can be modulated if the moderators are related to self-other focus.…”

Social group membership does not modulate automatic imitation in a contrastive multi-agent paradigm

“…Responses are typically faster when the required action is congruent to the observed, task-irrelevant action than when it is incongruent (Bertenthal et al, 2006; Brass et al, 2000; Catmur & Heyes, 2011; Heyes et al, 2005). This congruency effect is known to be a reliable (Genschow et al, 2017) and valid (Cracco & Brass, 2019) measure of automatic imitation (Cracco, Bardi, et al, 2018; Heyes, 2011).…”