What are reaction time indices of automatic imitation measuring?

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.

Social Semantics: The role of conceptual knowledge and cognitive control in a neurobiological model of the social brain

“…Therefore, depending on the social context, there is a need to exert quantitatively stronger control influences to inhibit the retrieval of certain aspects of representational content. In addition, there might also be a need for qualitatively different kinds of control, such as control exerted through domain-general resources in some contexts, but semantic control resources in other contexts (Ramsey, 2018). In all contexts, however, we suggest that the processing of social information would require some degree of representational input and some form of cognitive control.…”

“…This enables a cross-examination of high-level assumptions regarding key organisational principles of social cognition, and brain function more generally. Second, we compare tenets of our model to those that have emerged from within a specific domain of social cognition, namely the phenomenon of 'automatic imitation' (Brass et al, 2009;Brass and Heyes, 2005;Darda et al, 2018;de Guzman et al, 2016;Gowen and Poliakoff, 2012;Heyes, 2011;Ramsey, 2018;Sowden and Shah, 2014;Spengler et al, 2009;Wang and Hamilton, 2012). We have chosen to focus on automatic imitation partly for convenience, in that we have experience in this area of research, but also because it provides a specific concrete example of how the general principals of the model can be applied within a specific research context.…”

“…For example, future research into executive processes in social cognition should explicitly model, and empirically examine, the role of domain-general control alongside any proposed form of domain-specific "social control" (see Section 4.2 for practical examples; Brass et al, 2009;Brass and Heyes, 2005;de Guzman et al, 2016;Sowden and Shah, 2014;Spengler et al, 2009;Wang and Hamilton, 2012). This also includes acknowledging the possibility that domain-general control processes interact with domain-specific social representations (Darda et al, 2018;Ramsey, 2018). Such a position statement reinforces the important distinction between the 'socialness' of information in our environment and that of mental processes.…”

RamseyWard_top_down_challenges

“…An experiment which uses only social stimuli to show social modulation is susceptible to this argument. For example, visual stimuli of fingers being raised produce congruency effects on finger-raising responses (Brass, Bekkering, Wohlschlager, & Prinz, 2000), but this does not necessarily imply a social process of imitation has been demonstrated (Ramsey, 2018b;Ramsey & Ward, in press). It implies that at some level, the stimulus code given to irrelevant finger stimuli overlaps with the stimulus code given to the imperative number stimulus (e.g., Hommel, 2009).…”

RamseyWard_social_priority_mapping

“…Importantly, however, this is not to suggest that there is one hybrid account of social information processing; rather, a productive research programme is likely to generate many different hybrid accounts. By outlining one hybrid model, we aim to use it as a vehicle to highlight the value of hybrid accounts more generally, as well as to link it in with other recent hybrid accounts of mental function (Amodio, 2019;Binney & Ramsey, 2019;Cabeza & Moscovitch, 2013;Jefferies, 2013;Lambon Ralph, Jefferies, Patterson, & Rogers, 2017;Ramsey, 2018b;Spunt & Adolphs, 2017). Hybrid accounts make it clear that a higher bar of attainment needs to be set for what counts as convincing evidence for domain-specific explanations of social behaviour.…”