Cited by 791Action Observation and SynchronizationMotor Control and AdaptationFree Will and Agency

Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues

Brass, Marcel, Bekkering, Harold, Wohlschläger, Andreas, Prinz, Wolfgang·2000·Brain and Cognition

Abstract

Intuitively, one can assume that imitating a movement is an easier task than responding to a symbolic stimulus like a verbal instruction. Support for this suggestion can be found in neuropsychological research as well as in research on stimulus-response compatibility. However controlled experimental evidence for this assumption is still lacking. We used a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm to test the assumption. In a series of experiments, it was tested whether observed finger movements have a stronger influence on finger movement execution than a symbolic or spatial cue. In the first experiment, we compared symbolic cues with observed finger movements using an interference paradigm. Observing finger movements strongly influenced movement execution, irrespective of whether the finger movement was the relevant or the irrelevant stimulus dimension. In the second experiment, effects of observed finger movements and spatial finger cues were compared. The observed finger movement dominated the spatial finger cue. A reduction in the similarity of observed and executed action in the third experiment led to a decrease of the influence of observed finger movement, which demonstrates the crucial role of the imitative relation of observed and executed action for the described effects. The results are discussed in relation to recent models of stimulus-response compatibility. Neurocognitive support for the strong relationship between movement observation and movement execution is reported.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/brcg.2000.1225

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reaction times are faster for imitative responses than for non-imitative responses.

    “As would be expected from the SRC literature using symbolic stimuli, reaction times are faster for imitative responses (which by definition share many properties with the action stimulus) than for non-imitative responses (Brass et al., 2000; Stürmer et al., 2000).”
  • Automatic imitation comprises both a facilitation effect and an interference effect.

    “Indeed, it is well-established in the literature that automatic imitation comprises both a facilitation and an interference effect (Brass et al., 2000;Cracco et al., 2015;Genschow et al., 2017).”

    From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as Brass et al., 2000

  • Imitation is a form of stimulus-response compatibility involving human actions, with responses that are stimulus-compatible in spatial and kinetic features.

    “Imitation—the copying of others actions—is a form of SRC involving human actions, where responses are stimulus-compatible with respect to spatial and kinetic features (Brass et al., 2000; Stürmer et al., 2000).”
  • Automatic imitation of observed actions has been shown in lab and naturalistic settings.

    “An automatic (unintended or unconscious) tendency to imitate observed actions has been demonstrated in both laboratory and naturalistic settings (Chartrand and Bargh, 1999; Brass et al., 2000)”
  • Observing a congruent action speeds up an unrelated task response, whereas observing an incongruent action slows it down.

    “In cognitive psychology, it is studied by means of automatic imitation -the finding that observing congruent actions facilitates, whereas observing incongruent actions impedes, unrelated task responses (Brass et al., 2000;Cracco, Bardi, et al., 2018;Heyes, 2011;Sturmer, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2000).”

    From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as Brass et al., 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Venue
Brain and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-11
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
124-143
ISSN
0278-2626 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2071684277
Cited by
791
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 46
FWCI
10.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
stimulus-response compatibility, imitation, symbolic cues, spatial cues, interference paradigm, action observation, action similarity, motor control
MeSH terms
Cues, Feedback, Fingers, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Movement, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Spatial Behavior, Symbolism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review