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

Souter, Laura De; Braem, Senne; Genschow, Oliver; Braß, Marcel; Cracco, Emiel

doi:10.31234/osf.io/hzp2k

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All analyses were performed on the data of the test phase. Trial exclusions were based on our recent research on automatic imitation (e.g., De Souter et al, 2021). Practice trials were excluded from both the reaction time (RT) and error rate (ER) analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model expertise does not influence automatic imitation

Nevejans

Cracco

2022

Exp Brain Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social learning theories state that new skills can be learned by observing others. Automatic imitation is thought to play an important role in this process. However, whether imitation is beneficial to learning critically depends on the expertise of the imitated person. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of model expertise on automatic imitation, by comparing automatic imitation of an expert and non-expert model in two within-subject experiments. In a first experiment (N = 61), we manipulated the perception of expertise in one task and tested how this influenced automatic imitation in a separate task. However, in contrast to our hypothesis, and in spite of a successful manipulation check, we did not find evidence for an effect of model expertise on imitative behavior. To exclude the alternative explanation that this was due to a lack of transfer of expertise attribution, we then conducted a second, preregistered experiment (N = 125), in which we manipulated model expertise using the same task also used to measure automatic imitation. However, in line with the results of Experiment 1, we found no evidence for an effect of model expertise on imitative behavior.These results put important constraints on the role of automatic imitation in motor learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model expertise does not influence automatic imitation

Nevejans

Cracco

2022

Exp Brain Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants performed the experiment online in their browser window. In line with our previous work (e.g., Cracco & Brass, 2018b;De Souter et al, 2021), we excluded participants if they indicated that they had not used their right hand in the task or if their overall reaction time (RT) or error rate (ER) exceeded the sample mean by ≥ 3 SD. This resulted in the exclusion of three participants who did not use their right hand.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrently observed actions are represented not as compound actions but as independent actions.

Cracco¹,

Isterdael²,

Genschow³

et al. 2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research suggests that we can simultaneously represent the actions of multiple agents in our motor system. However, it is unclear exactly how concurrently observed actions are represented. Here, we tested two competing hypotheses. According to the independence hypothesis, concurrently observed actions are represented as independent actions. According to the compound hypothesis, they are instead integrated, whenever possible, into compound actions. In Experiment 1 (N = 32), we first show that the standard imitation-inhibition task with a single hand can be extended to measure automatic imitation of compound actions. In Experiments 2-5 (N Total = 368), we then investigated the representation of concurrently observed actions by further extending this task to include two hands. The results showed that two hands performing two different actions (e.g., one hand lifts index finger, one hand lifts middle finger) produced an effect similar to that of both hands performing just one of those actions (e.g., both hands lift index finger) but different from that of both hands performing both actions together (i.e., a compound action; lift both index and middle finger). This indicates that concurrently observed actions are coded as independent actions in the motor system. Public Significance StatementThis study shows that concurrently observed actions are not integrated into compound actions, suggesting that the actions of different agents are processed independently in the motor system.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that the aim of this study was not to disentangle identity and number congruency, we discarded those trials (but see Supplementary Material for an analysis disentangling both forms of congruency). In addition, and in line with our previous work on automatic imitation (e.g., Cracco & Brass, 2018b;De Souter et al, 2021), we excluded trials from both the RT and ER analyses if no response was provided before the response deadline (0.35%) or if the RT was < 100 ms (0.16%). We also excluded trials from the RT but not the ER analysis if the response was incorrect (3.52%) or if the RT exceeded the participant's mean RT by ⩾3 SD (2.10%).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrently observed actions are represented not as compound actions but as independent actions

Cracco

Isterdael²,

Genschow³

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research suggests that we can simultaneously represent the actions of multiple agents in our motor system. However, it is currently unclear exactly how we represent their actions. Here, we tested two competing hypotheses. According to the independence hypothesis, we represent concurrently observed actions as independent, competing actions. According to the compound hypothesis, we instead integrate those actions, whenever possible, into compound actions. In Experiment 1 (N = 32), we first show that the standard imitation-inhibition task with a single hand can be extended to measure automatic imitation of compound actions. In Experiment 2 (N = 55), we then tested how we represent concurrently observed actions by further extending this task to include two hands performing identical or different actions. The results revealed that two hands performing two different actions (e.g., one hand lifts index finger, one hand lifts middle finger) produced an effect similar to that of both hands performing just one of those actions (e.g., both hands lift index finger) but different from that of both hands performing both actions together (e.g., lift both index and middle finger). As such, our results show that concurrently observed actions are coded separately in the motor system.

show abstract

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

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Model expertise does not influence automatic imitation

Model expertise does not influence automatic imitation

Concurrently observed actions are represented not as compound actions but as independent actions.

Concurrently observed actions are represented not as compound actions but as independent actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About