CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Action Observation and SynchronizationFree Will and AgencyMotor Control and Adaptation

Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities

Open access
Boyer, Ty W., Longo, Matthew R., Bertenthal, Bennett I.·2012·Acta Psychologica
DOI 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In recent years research on automatic imitation has received considerable attention because it represents an experimental platform for investigating a number of interrelated theories suggesting that the perception of action automatically activates corresponding motor programs. A key debate within this research centers on whether automatic imitation is any different than other long-term S-R associations, such as spatial stimulus-response compatibility. One approach to resolving this issue is to examine whether automatic imitation shows similar response characteristics as other classes of stimulus-response compatibility. This hypothesis was tested by comparing imitative and spatial compatibility effects with a two alternative forced-choice stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. The stimulus on each trial was a left or right hand with either the index or middle finger tapping down. Speeded responses were performed with the index or middle finger of the right hand in response to the identity or the left-right spatial position of the stimulus finger. Two different tasks were administered: one that involved responding to the stimulus (S-R) and one that involved responding to the opposite stimulus (OS-R; i.e., the one not presented on that trial). Based on previous research and a connectionist model, we predicted standard compatibility effects for both spatial and imitative compatibility in the S-R task, and a reverse compatibility effect for spatial compatibility, but not for imitative compatibility, in the OS-R task. The results from the mean response times, mean percentage of errors, and response time distributions all converged to support these predictions. A second noteworthy result was that the recoding of the finger identity in the OS-R task required significantly more time than the recoding of the left-right spatial position, but the encoding time for the two stimuli in the S-R task was equivalent. In sum, this evidence suggests that the processing of spatial and imitative compatibility is dissociable with regard to two different processes in dual processing models of stimulus-response compatibility.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Two experiments tested whether automatic imitation is reducible to spatial stimulus–response compatibility by comparing S-R and opposite S-R (OS-R) tasks. Spatial compatibility reversed under OS-R instructions, whereas imitative compatibility did not, supporting a dissociation between the two and a specialized direct-matching route for automatic imitation.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1 (spatial compatibility), RTs were faster on compatible than incompatible trials in the S-R task, F(1, 22) = 14.56, p < .001, but showed a reverse compatibility effect in the OS-R task, F(1, 22) = 8.91, p = .007; the task × compatibility interaction was significant, F(1, 22) = 23.12, p < .001.
  • In Experiment 2 (imitative compatibility), there was an overall compatibility effect, F(1, 22) = 9.00, p = .007; it was significant in the S-R condition, F(1, 22) = 10.15, p = .004, but not in the OS-R condition, F(1, 22) = 1.12, p = .302, indicating no reverse compatibility effect.
  • RT distribution analyses converged: in Experiment 1, spatial compatibility increased across quintiles in the S-R task, F(1, 11) = 4.96, p = .048, and decreased in the OS-R task, F(1, 11) = 14.54, p = .003; in Experiment 2, the S-R task showed a significant linear trend, F(1, 11) = 12.04, p = .005, but the OS-R task did not, F(1, 11) = .04, p = .838.
  • OS-R recoding took longer for spatial compatibility: RTs in the OS-R task were 110–180 ms longer than in the S-R task, while S-R encoding times for imitative vs. spatial cues did not differ significantly (compatible: 407 vs. 420 ms, t(22) = .51, p = .616; incompatible: 443 vs. 449 ms, t(22) = .32, p = .753).

Methods

  • Two experiments used a two-alternative forced-choice stimulus–response compatibility paradigm with S-R and OS-R tasks. Stimuli were six-frame animations of a left or right hand with the index or middle finger tapping downward; responses were made with the index or middle finger of the right hand.
  • Experiment 1 tested spatial compatibility: participants responded to the anatomical identity of the tapping finger, with left–right spatial position as the task-irrelevant dimension. Experiment 2 tested imitative compatibility: participants responded to the left–right spatial position, with finger identity as the task-irrelevant dimension.
  • Each experiment had 24 undergraduates (Exp. 1: 13 female, 11 male, ages 18–28, M = 19.8; Exp. 2: 15 female, 9 male, ages 18–26, M = 19.7); four additional Exp. 2 participants in the OS-R task were excluded for errors on 30% or more trials. Participants completed 20 blocks of 20 trials after 12 practice trials. Analyses used mixed-model ANOVAs on mean RT and error rates, plus quantile RT distribution analyses.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the Sauser and Billard (2006) model is essentially qualitative and lacks sufficient specificity to make novel predictions; it cannot predict the RT distribution effects, and a complete quantitative model is still being developed.
  • Evident from the text: both experiments relied on small undergraduate samples, with 12 participants per task condition in each experiment, limiting generalizability.
  • Evident from the text: Experiment 2 excluded four OS-R participants who made errors on 30% or more trials, suggesting task confusion in that condition.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.003

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

11 of 45 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Observing a photograph of a hand in a typical handshake gesture is more likely to prime a complementary action with the opposite hand than an imitative action with the same hand.

    “For example, observing a photograph of a hand in a typical handshake gesture is more likely to prime a complementary action with the opposite hand than an imitative action with the same hand (Liepelt et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liepelt et al., 2010 source

      The paper supports stronger complementary priming for a photographed human handshake gesture, but reverses the claim’s hand assignments. Section 4.1.3 defines the complementary response as using the anatomically matching hand, and section 4.3 says that observing an extended right hand activates a right-hand response. The opposite, specular hand is the mirroring response (section 6.3). Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    A reverse compatibility effect in response to human movements has been reported when task context shifts participants' attentional or intentional set from imitation to communication or another complementary action.

    “In fact, a reversal has been reported when the context of the task shifts participants' attentional or intentional set from imitation to communication or some other complementary action (Liepelt, Prinz, & Brass, 2010;van Schie, Waterschoot, & Bekkering, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Liepelt, Prinz, & Brass, 2010 source

      The Discussion (section 4.3) reports a reversed compatibility effect when participants observed a human hand extended for a handshake, and section 6.2 interprets it as a complementary response. The paper does not show that a shift in participants’ attentional or intentional set from imitation to communication caused the reversal; its procedure (section 4.1.3) instructed participants to respond to numbers irrespective of the observed hand. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites van Schie, Waterschoot, & Bekkering, 2008 source
  • Premisecitation

    Previous findings from the authors' lab showed that imitative compatibility effects were attenuated or eliminated by perturbing the naturalness of the stimulus, whereas spatial compatibility was not affected by these perturbations.

    “This result was foreshadowed by previous findings in our lab revealing that imitative compatibility effects were attenuated or eliminated by perturbing the naturalness of the stimulus, whereas spatial compatibility was not affected by these perturbations (Longo et al., 2008;Longo & Bertenthal, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Longo et al., 2008 source
    • cites Longo & Bertenthal, 2009 source

      The Results report that drawing attention to a virtual hand’s artificiality reduced automatic imitation from 11 ms to 4 ms, but did not eliminate it. The Design states that the stimuli were spatially compatible in both anatomical-compatibility conditions; this paper does not establish that a separate spatial-compatibility effect was unaffected by the manipulation. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Associative learning is very likely responsible for the development of S-R connections.

    “Although we question whether associative learning represents a general mechanism that can explain the differences between imitative and spatial compatibility, we agree with Catmur and Heyes (2011) that this mechanism is very likely responsible for the development of S-R connections.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Catmur and Heyes (2011) source

      In “A Possible Common Psychological Mechanism” (pp. 33–34), the paper proposes that associative learning establishes links between sensory and motor representations, supporting the substance of the S–R connection claim. It calls this mechanism “possible” and says it “may be” involved, rather than concluding that it is very likely responsible. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 2's S-R task, responses to the spatial location of the tapping finger were faster when the finger was imitatively compatible than when it was imitatively incompatible.

    “In the S-R task, participants responded faster to the spatial location of the tapping finger when it was imitatively compatible than when it was not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 34
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 16

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Later studies have shown that automatic imitation is not dependent on stimulus salience or spatial compatibility.

    “more recent studies corrected these problems and confirmed that automatic imitation was independent of stimulus salience or spatial compatibility”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Heyes et al., 2005 source
    • cites Bertenthal et al., 2006 source
    • cites Catmur & Heyes, 2011 source

      The General Discussion (p. 31) states that imitative compatibility is independent of simple spatial compatibility. Experiment 1’s Results and Discussion (p. 21) report no interaction involving the discriminability of the task-relevant colour stimulus, but the paper does not establish independence from stimulus salience generally. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The facilitating effects of observing a task-irrelevant moving finger were eliminated when the finger appeared to move in a biomechanically impossible manner, yet the response was still facilitated by the same finger when it was spatially compatible.

    “For example, the facilitating effects of observing a task irrelevant moving finger were eliminated when the finger appeared to move in a biomechanically impossible manner, yet the response was still facilitated by this same finger when it was spatially compatible (Longo et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Longo et al., 2008 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Inferred intentions modulate imitation in infants as young as 7 months of age, whereas there is no evidence of spatial correspondence modulating performance at such a young age.

    “Furthermore, inferred intentions modulate imitation in infants as young as 7 months of age (Hamlin, Hallinan, & Woodward, 2008), whereas we know of no evidence of spatial correspondence modulating performance at such a young age.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hamlin, Hallinan, & Woodward, 2008 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The results from Catmur and Heyes (2011) reveal within-trial differences for spatial and imitative compatibilities: spatial compatibility effects emerge earlier, while imitative compatibility effects continue to increase for a longer period.

    “This conclusion is somewhat surprising given that the results from this study reveal within trial differences for spatial and imitative compatibilities.More specifically, the effects of spatial compatibility emerge earlier than the effects of imitative compatibility, but these latter effects continue to increase for a longer period of time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Catmur and Heyes (2011) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Responding to the stimulus cue opposite to the one that appears on the screen requires a logical recoding of the relevant stimulus, and this recoding carries over to the irrelevant stimulus.

    “Consistent with previous interpretations (e.g., DeJong, Liang, & Lauber, 1994;Wühr & Biebl, 2009), we surmise that responding to the stimulus cue opposite to the one that appears on the screen requires a logical recoding of the relevant stimulus and that this recoding carries-over to the irrelevant stimulus as well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites DeJong, Liang, & Lauber, 1994 source
    • cites Wühr & Biebl, 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, the compatibility effect was significant in the S-R condition but not in the OS-R condition.

    “the compatibility effect was significant in the S-R condition, F(1, 22) = 10.15,p = .004,p 2 = .316,but not in the OS-R condition, F(1, 22) = 1.12, p = .302,p 2 = .048.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2's OS-R task, responses were faster for imitatively compatible than imitatively incompatible fingers, but this difference was not statistically significant.

    “In the OS-R task, participants also responded faster to the imitatively compatible than to the imitatively incompatible finger, although this difference was non-significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, there was a significant linear trend across quintiles in the S-R task but not in the OS-R task.

    “there was a significant linear trend across quintiles for the S-R task, F(1, 11) = 12.04, p = .005,p 2 = .522,but not for the OS-R task, F(1, 11) = .04,p = .838,p 2 = .004.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, the simple effect of compatibility on error rates was significant in the S-R condition but not in the OS-R condition.

    “the simple effect for compatibility was significant in the S-R condition (Ms = 2.8% and 5.2% for compatible and incompatible stimuli, respectively), F(1, 22) = 6.04, p = .022,p 2 = .215,but was not in the OS-R condition (Ms = 3.6% and 5.9% for compatible and incompatible, respectively), F(1, 22) = 1.38, p = .25,p 2 = .059.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Spatial compatibility reversed in Experiment 1's OS-R condition, whereas imitative compatibility did not reverse in Experiment 2's comparable OS-R condition.

    “Nevertheless, this latter result contrasts sharply with the analogous result from the first experiment in which participants showed a reverse compatibility effect when tested for the effects of spatial compatibility.”
    • Also stated in: § 6.1. One vs. two pathways · plain
      “Whereas, spatial compatibility reversed in the OS-R condition of Experiment 1, imitative compatibility did not reverse in the comparable condition of Experiment 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The current study's findings show no difference in response times for encoding spatial versus imitative cues, which is inconsistent with the prediction that body parts take longer to encode than spatial positions.

    “moreover, the findings from the current study showing no difference in response times for encoding spatial vs. imitative cues are inconsistent with this prediction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the S-R condition where no recoding was necessary, there was no significant difference in response times to imitative versus spatial cues (compatible: 407 vs. 420 ms, t(22)=.51, p=.616; incompatible: 443 vs. 449 ms, t(22)=.32, p=.753).

    “Although differential encoding of the two stimuli might have also contributed to this difference, the results revealed that there was no significant difference in responding to the imitative and spatial cues in the S-R condition where no recoding was necessary (407 vs. 420 ms in the compatible condition, t(22) = .51,p = .616;443 vs. 449 ms in the incompatible condition , t(22) = .32,p = .753).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    RT distribution analyses reveal that both spatial and imitative compatibility increase as a function of response time.

    “For example, this model is not capable of predicting the effects of the RT distribution analyses revealing that both spatial and imitative compatibility increase as a function of response time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Perceiving an action automatically activates matching motor programs in the observer.

    “the perception of action automatically activates corresponding motor programs in the observer”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brass & Heyes, 2005 source
    • cites Decety et al., 1997 source
    • cites Dromard, 1906

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Stimulus-response compatibility depends on the perceptual, structural, or conceptual similarity between a stimulus and a response.

    “S-R compatibility is determined by the perceptual, structural, or conceptual similarity between a stimulus and response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kornblum, Hasbroucq, and Osman (1990) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In stimulus-response compatibility tasks involving human movements, responses are usually faster when the observed and executed movements match than when they do not.

    “If the movements of the stimulus and response fingers match, responses are typically faster than when they do not match the same finger movements.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brass and colleagues (2000)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sauser and Billard's single-route model predicts a reverse compatibility effect in the opposite stimulus-response task, while their direct matching model does not.

    “Sauser and Billard's (2006) simulation results from the single route model revealed a reverse compatibility effect (i.e., faster responding to incompatible stimuli) in the OS-R task, whereas the results from the direct matching model failed to show this reverse effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sauser and Billard (2006) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Automatic imitation and other stimulus-response compatibility effects produce the same pattern of faster responses for compatible than incompatible stimulus-response pairs.

    “the pattern of results for automatic imitation and all other S-R compatibility effects is exactly the same (i.e., faster response times for the compatible than for the incompatible stimulus-response).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    No participant took part in both experiments.

    “None of the participants were tested in the previous experiment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Experiment 2, the error results mirrored the response time results, confirming they were not due to a speed-accuracy trade-off.

    “these results mirror the response time results and confirm that they were not attributable to a speed-accuracy trade-off.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    It is not yet possible to determine which model best fits imitative compatibility because the necessary experiments have not been done.

    “it is not yet possible to evaluate which of the two models best fits imitative compatibility, because the necessary experiments have yet to be conducted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were unaware of the study's purpose.

    “Participants were naive to the purpose of the study and were awarded course credit for participating.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Experiment 1, the error pattern matched the response time pattern, indicating the results were not due to a speed-accuracy trade-off.

    “the pattern of errors across conditions was similar to that of RTs, thus confirming that the results were not attributable to a speed-accuracy trade-off.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In Experiment 2, four additional participants assigned to the OS-R task were excluded because they made errors on 30% or more of trials.

    “Four additional participants, all of whom were assigned to the OS-R task, were excluded because they made errors on 30% or more of the trials, suggesting they misunderstood the task or became confused during testing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Stimulus order was random within each block, with equal numbers of left/right hand trials crossed with index/middle finger trials.

    “The order of the stimuli was random within each block, as long as the number of left and right hand trials crossed with the number of index and middle finger trials remained equal.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The paradigm used here independently tests spatial and imitative compatibility while keeping the stimuli constant across conditions.

    “This paradigm is designed to avoid spatial and stimulus salience confounds by independently testing for spatial and imitative compatibility while holding the stimuli constant across conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The direct matching model predicted no reverse compatibility effect for automatic imitation, and the current results confirm this prediction.

    “As previously discussed, this model predicted no reverse compatibility effect for automatic imitation, and the current results confirm this prediction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sauser and Billard (2006) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The mean response times, mean error rates, and response time distributions all supported the study's predictions.

    “The results from the mean response times, mean percentage of errors, and response time distributions all converged to support these predictions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Experiment 1, response times in the OS-R task were significantly longer than in the S-R task, consistent with the idea that the OS-R task requires extra processing to recode the stimulus.

    “the response times in the OS-R task were significantly longer than in the S-R task, which is consistent with the hypothesis that this task involves additional processing time to recode the stimulus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The interactions in the combined analysis were due to the reversed spatial compatibility effect in the OS-R condition of Experiment 1 and either no effect or a compatibility effect in the other three conditions.

    “These interactions were due to the reversed spatial compatibility effect in the OS-R condition of Experiment 1, and either no effect or a compatibility effect in each of the other three conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants were assigned evenly to the S-R and OS-R conditions.

    “Participants were evenly assigned to S-R and OS-R conditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Recoding finger identity in the OS-R task took significantly longer than recoding left-right spatial position, while encoding time for the two stimuli in the S-R task was equivalent.

    “A second noteworthy result was that the recoding of the finger identity in the OS-R task required significantly more time than the recoding of the left-right spatial position, but the encoding time for the two stimuli in the S-R task was equivalent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In the OS-R condition, excitation from the second pathway offsets the reversal of the compatibility effect occurring in the first pathway, eliminating the reverse compatibility effect in the automatic imitation condition.

    “In the OS-R condition, the excitation by this second pathway will offset the reversal of the compatibility effect that occurs in the first pathway.As a consequence, the reverse compatibility effect is eliminated in the automatic imitation condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The effects of spatial compatibility on response times are consistent with a single route model, whereas the effects of imitative compatibility are consistent with a dual route model.

    “As we've demonstrated in this paper, the effects of spatial compatibility on response times is consistent with a single route model, whereas the effects of imitative compatibility is consistent with a dual route model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The perception of others' movements is influenced by a bidirectional process involving bottom-up processing of sensory information and top-down processing of mental states.

    “This sort of evidence was recently reviewed by Teufel, Fletcher, and Davis (2010) who concluded that the perception of others' movements is influenced by a bidirectional process involving bottom-up processing of sensory information as well as top-down processing of mental states.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Teufel, Fletcher, and Davis (2010) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    It does not necessarily follow that all S-R associations share the same connection strength, are modified equally by learning and experience, or interact with the response in the same way.

    “It does not necessarily follow, however, that all S-R associations share the same connection strength, are modified equally by learning and experience, or interact with the response in the same way (Wiggett et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wiggett et al., 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The relevant finger identity and irrelevant spatial position stimulus information were decoded separately and simultaneously during a first stage, and then processed by a cognitive recoding and decision stage in preparation for a motor response.

    “It seems reasonable to conclude that the relevant (finger identity) and irrelevant (spatial position) stimulus information were decoded separately and simultaneously during a first stage, and then were processed by a cognitive recoding and decision stage in preparation for executing a motor response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Automatic imitation is not reducible to other forms of stimulus-response compatibility, and instead is mediated by a specialized network of processes consistent with theories advocating a shared representation between observation and execution of actions.

    “It is therefore concluded that automatic imitation is not reducible to other forms of stimulus-response compatibility, and instead is mediated by a specialized network of processes consistent with those theories advocating a shared representation between the observation and execution of actions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The automatic spatial S-R association elicited in the spatial cue condition is presumably not as strong as the imitative association, so the time necessary to recode the stimulus and execute the response is significantly less.

    “By comparison, the automatic spatial S-R association elicited in the spatial cue condition is presumably not as strong, and thus the time necessary to recode the stimulus and execute the response is significantly less.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    One limitation of the Sauser and Billard model (2006) is that it is essentially qualitative and lacks sufficient specificity to make novel predictions.

    “One limitation of the Sauser and Billard model ( 2006) is that it is essentially qualitative and lacks sufficient specificity to make any novel predictions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sauser and Billard (2006) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The second pathway corresponds to a direct route between observing a finger movement and preparing a response by the same finger, presumably because observation and execution share a common representation.

    “The second pathway corresponds to a direct route between the observation of a finger movement and the preparation of a response by the same finger, presumably because the observation and execution of the action share a common representation (e.g., Hurley, 2008;Prinz, 1997;Craighero, Metta, Sandini, & Fadiga, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hurley, 2008 source
    • cites Prinz, 1997 source
    • cites Craighero, Metta, Sandini, & Fadiga, 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The increase in response times in the OS-R condition is due primarily to differences associated with recoding the two imperative stimuli.

    “We hypothesize that this increase is due primarily to the differences associated with the recoding of the two imperative stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This interactive process should modulate automatic imitation, but there is no obvious reason why it would modulate spatial compatibility effects.

    “Whereas this interactive process should modulate automatic imitation (Teufel et al., 2010), there is no obvious reason why it would modulate the effects of spatial compatibility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Teufel et al., 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The RT differences in recoding the stimulus cues are not attributable to differences in stimulus encoding, and they provide additional evidence that the underlying processes for S-R mapping by spatial and imitative cues are dissociable.

    “Given that the RT differences in recoding the stimulus cues are not attributable to differences in stimulus encoding, they provide additional evidence that the underlying processes responsible for the S-R mapping by spatial and imitative cues are dissociable.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is difficult to imagine how mental state attribution would affect spatial compatibility since spatial compatibility applies equally to human and nonhuman movements.

    “By contrast, it is difficult to imagine how this sort of mental state attribution would affect spatial compatibility since this process applies equally to both human and nonhuman movements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results from the two experiments necessitate different processing models, and therefore challenge the claim that the same underlying processes are responsible for automatic imitation and other stimulus-response compatibility effects.

    “Given that the results from these two sets of experiments necessitate different processing models, they clearly challenge the claim that the same underlying processes are responsible for automatic imitation as well as other stimulusresponse compatibility effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
46 of 46

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Most, if not all, participants recoded the stimulus first and then responded, rather than first selecting the response and then recoding it before responding.

    “As such, we assume that most, if not all, participants recoded the stimulus first and then responded, as opposed to first selecting the response and then recoding it before responding.”
1 of 1

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?

  • To measure imitation interference independent of spatial compatibility effects, spatial and imitative processes need to be dissociated.

    “To measure imitation interference independent of spatial compatibility effects, spatial and imitative processes need to be dissociated (Gowen, Bolton, & Poliakoff, 2016;Marsh et al., 2016;Boyer, Longo, & Bertenthal, 2012;Cooper, Catmur, & Heyes, 2012;Catmur & Heyes, 2011;Wiggett, Hudson, Tipper, & Downing, 2011;Bertenthal, Longo, & Kosobud, 2006).”

    From Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation (2018) · cites this paper as Boyer, Longo, & Bertenthal, 2012

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 22.06reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 22) = 22.06, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 23.12reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,22) = 23.12,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 14.56reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 22) = 14.56, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 8.91reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007

    “F(1, 22) = 8.91, p = .007”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 0.35reported p = .563 · recomputed p = .560

    “F(1, 22) = .35,p = .563”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 6.56reported p = .018 · recomputed p = .018

    “F(1, 22) = 6.56, p = .018”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 23.36reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,22) = 23.36,p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 9.54reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(1, 22) = 9.54, p = .005”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 14.04reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1, 22) = 14.04, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 0.22reported p = .646 · recomputed p = .644

    “F(1, 22) = .22,p = .646”

  • ConsistentF(4, 88) = 2.49reported p = .049 · recomputed p = .049

    “F(4, 88) = 2.49, p = .049”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 19.89reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 22) = 19.89,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(4, 88) = 12.28reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(4, 88) = 12.28, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 11) = 4.96reported p = .048 · recomputed p = .048

    “F(1, 11) = 4.96, p = .048”

  • ConsistentF(1, 11) = 14.54reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(1, 11) = 14.54, p = .003”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 9reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007

    “F(1, 22) = 9.00, p = .007”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 0.366reported p = .551 · recomputed p = .551

    “F(1, 22) = .366,p = .551”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 2.27reported p = .146 · recomputed p = .146

    “F(1, 22) = 2.27, p = .146”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 10.15reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004

    “F(1, 22) = 10.15,p = .004”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 1.12reported p = .302 · recomputed p = .301

    “F(1, 22) = 1.12, p = .302”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 4.7reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .041

    “F(1, 22) = 4.70, p = .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 0.197reported p = .661 · recomputed p = .661

    “F(1, 22) = .197,p = .661”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 0.001reported p = .981 · recomputed p = .975

    “F(1,22) = .001,p = .981”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 6.04reported p = .022 · recomputed p = .022

    “F(1, 22) = 6.04, p = .022”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 1.38reported p = .25 · recomputed p = .253

    “F(1, 22) = 1.38, p = .25”

  • ConsistentF(4, 88) = 4.47reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(4, 88) = 4.47, p = .002”

  • ConsistentF(1, 22) = 1.73reported p = .202 · recomputed p = .202

    “F(1, 22) = 1.73, p = .202”

  • ConsistentF(4, 88) = 3.33reported p = .014 · recomputed p = .014

    “F(4, 88) = 3.33, p = .014”

  • ConsistentF(1, 11) = 12.04reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(1, 11) = 12.04, p = .005”

  • ConsistentF(1, 11) = 0.04reported p = .838 · recomputed p = .845

    “F(1, 11) = .04,p = .838”

  • ConsistentF(1, 44) = 6.75reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013

    “F(1, 44) = 6.75, p = .013”

  • ConsistentF(1, 44) = 5.26reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .027

    “F(1, 44) = 5.26, p = .027”

  • ConsistentF(1, 44) = 13.47reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 44) = 13.47,p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 44) = 7.79reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(1, 44) = 7.79, p = .008”

  • ConsistentF(1, 44) = 19.15reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 44) = 19.15,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 44) = 4.7reported p = .036 · recomputed p = .036

    “F(1, 44) = 4.70, p = .036”

  • Consistentt(22) = 0.51reported p = .616 · recomputed p = .615

    “t(22) = .51,p = .616”

  • Consistentt(22) = 0.32reported p = .753 · recomputed p = .752

    “t(22) = .32,p = .753”

38 of 38

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Figure caption describes a left-hand response

    Minor

    The Figure 2 caption says participants responded with their left index finger, but the study states that all responses were made with the right hand.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dromard, 1906, A psychological and clinical study of echopraxia, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 33, 546

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Boyer, T. W., Longo, M. R., & Bertenthal, B. I.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
  • Indiana University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Boyer, Ty W.
  • Bertenthal, Bennett I.
ORCID
Venue
Acta Psychologica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
139
Issue
3
Pages
440-448
ISSN
0001-6918 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.003
OpenAlex
W1980931220
Cited by
64
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Acta Psychologica (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
automatic imitation, stimulus-response compatibility, spatial compatibility, dual-process models, perception-action coupling, response time distribution, encoding time
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Motion Perception, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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