Cited by 1,134Action Observation and SynchronizationEmbodied and Extended CognitionFree Will and Agency

Predictive coding: an account of the mirror neuron system

Open access
Kilner, James M., Friston, Karl J., Frith, Chris D.·2007·Cognitive Processing

Abstract

Is it possible to understand the intentions of other people by simply observing their actions? Many believe that this ability is made possible by the brain's mirror neuron system through its direct link between action and observation. However, precisely how intentions can be inferred through action observation has provoked much debate. Here we suggest that the function of the mirror system can be understood within a predictive coding framework that appeals to the statistical approach known as empirical Bayes. Within this scheme the most likely cause of an observed action can be inferred by minimizing the prediction error at all levels of the cortical hierarchy that are engaged during action observation. This account identifies a precise role for the mirror system in our ability to infer intentions from actions and provides the outline of the underlying computational mechanisms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10339-007-0170-2

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The AIM model only works when one sensory input is associated with one cause.

    “The problem is that such a theory only works when one sensory input is associated with one cause (Hickok, 2009;Kilner et al., 2007).”

    From Connecting minds and sharing emotions through mimicry: A neurocognitive model of emotional contagion (2017) · cites this paper as Kilner et al., 2007

    In “Generative and recognition models” (page unavailable), the paper says a model that infers causes by inverting sensory inputs works only when each input is uniquely associated with one cause. This supports the stated limitation, but the passage applies it to a bottom-up recognition model rather than identifying the AIM model specifically. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Free-energy and predictive-processing accounts suggest that biological systems update internal models in response to mismatches between observation and expectation.

    “Free-energy37,38 and predictive-processing39,40 accounts suggest that biological systems update internal models in response to mismatches between observation and expectation.”

    From Brain-inspired spatial intelligence for embodied agents (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

  • This flexibility avoids the single input-output relationship criticized in mirror neuron theories.

    “This gives organisms greater flexibility and avoids single input-output relationship criticized in mirror neuron theories (Hickok, 2009;Kilner et al., 2007).”
  • If certain creatures can use the repertoire of policies that they deploy for action selection to explain the actions of others, then we arrive at the Bayesian formulation of the mirror neuron system.

    “If certain creatures can use the repertoire of policies that they deploy for action selection to explain the actions of others, then we arrive at the Bayesian formulation of the mirror neuron system (Kilner et al., 2007).”
  • Autonomic mimicry remains relevant in adults as a mechanism for emotion regulation, particularly in emotionally salient or intimate interactions.

    “Although autonomic mimicry is especially critical in infancy, it remains relevant in adults as a mechanism for emotion regulation. Adults continue to exhibit physiological mirroring, particularly in emotionally salient or intimate interactions.”

    From Physiological attunement and flourishing: understanding the influence of relationships on health (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Introduction and Summary discuss motor representations of observed actions and inferring others’ intentions, not autonomic mimicry. Searches for autonomic mimicry, emotion regulation, physiological mirroring, and emotionally salient or intimate interactions found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kilner, J. M., Friston, K. J., & Frith, C. D.
Affiliations
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Kilner, James M.
Venue
Cognitive Processing
Published
2007-04-12
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
159-166
ISSN
  • 1612-4782 (ISSN-L)
  • 1612-4790
OpenAlex
W2132960888
Cited by
1,134
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 69 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 106 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 64 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 47
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Processing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (081048)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
mirror neuron system, predictive coding, action observation, intention understanding, empirical Bayes, prediction error, cortical hierarchy, computational neuroscience, social cognition
MeSH terms
Animals, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Models, Neurological, Motor Cortex, Neurons, Social Perception, Recognition, Psychology

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