When do we simulate non-human agents? Dissociating communicative and non-communicative actions
Open accessAbstract
There is strong evidence that we automatically simulate observed behavior in our motor system. Previous research suggests that this simulation process depends on whether we observe a human or a non-human agent. Measuring a motor priming effect, this study investigated the question of whether agent-sensitivity of motor simulation depends on the specific action observed. Participants saw pictures depicting end positions of different actions on a screen. All postures featured either a human or non-human agent. Participants had to produce the matching action with their left or right hand depending on the hand presented on the screen. Three different actions were displayed: a communicative action (emblem), a transitive (goal-directed) action and an intransitive action. We found motor priming effects of similar size for human and non-human agents for transitive and intransitive actions. However, the motor priming effect for communicative actions was present for the human agent, but absent for the non-human agent. These findings suggest that biological tuning of motor simulation is highly action-selective and depends on whether the observed behavior appears to be driven by a reasonable goal.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
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).”
From Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities (2012) · cites this paper as Liepelt et al., 2010
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 measuredA 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).”
From Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities (2012) · cites this paper as Liepelt, Prinz, & Brass, 2010
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
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
Cortical mechanisms of human imitation
Iacoboni, M., Woods, R. P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5449.2526 · Cited by 2,683 · see citing works
Parietal Lobe: From Action Organization to Intention Understanding
Fogassi, L., Ferrari, P. F., Gesierich, B., Rozzi, S., Chersi, F., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1106138 · Cited by 1,990 · see citing works
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1006/brcg.2000.1225 · Cited by 791 · see citing works
Self-citationThe mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared with imitative action
Newman-Norlund, R. D., van Schie, H. T., van Zuijlen, A. M. J., & Bekkering, H. (2007) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1911 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: a study of imitation
Stürmer, B., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2000) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.6.1746 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
Self-citationAutomatic imitation of intransitive actions
Press, C., Bird, G., Walsh, E., & Heyes, C. (2008) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2007.11.001 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Bekkering, H., Wohlschlager, A., & Gattis, M. (2000). Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 53, 153-164.
- Bertenthal, B. I., Longo, M. R., & Kosobud, A. (2006). Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 210-225.
- Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, et al. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 400-404.
- Buccino, G., Lui, F., Canessa, N., Patteri, I., Lagravinese, G., Benuzzi, F., et al. (2004). Neural circuits involved in the recognition of actions performed by nonconspecifics: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 114-126.
- Catmur, C., Gillmeister, H., Bird, G., Liepelt, R., Brass, M., & Heyes, C. M. (2008). Through the looking glass: Counter-mirror activation following incompatible sensorimotor learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 1208-1215.
- Catmur, C., Walsh, V., & Heyes, C. (2009). Associative sequence learning: The role of experience in the development of imitation and the mirror system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B - Biological Sciences, 364, 2369-2380.
- Flach, R., Press, C., Badet, A., & Heyes, C. M. (2010). Shaking hands: Priming by social effects. British Journal of Psychology. doi:10.1348/ 000712609X484595. · DOI
- Koski, L., Iacoboni, M., Dubeau, M. C., Woods, R. P., & Mazziotta, J. C. (2003). Modulation of cortical activity during different imitative behaviors. Journal of Neurophysiology, 89, 460-471.
- Liepelt, R., & Brass, M. (2010). Top-down modulation of motor priming by belief about animacy. Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1027/1618- 3169/a000028. · DOI
- Liepelt, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Brass, M. (2008). What is matched in direct matching? Intention attribution modulates motor priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 578-591.
- Longo, M. R., Kosobud, A., & Bertenthal, B. I. (2008). Automatic imitation of biomechanically impossible movements: Effects of priming movements vs. goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 489-501.
- Maeda, F., Kleiner-Fisman, G., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2002). Motor facilitation while observing hand actions: Specificity of the effect and role of observer's orientation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87, 1329-1335.
- Press, C., Bird, G., Flach, R., & Heyes, C. (2005). Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 632-640.
- Press, C., Gillmeister, H., & Heyes, C. (2006). Bottom-up, not top-down, modulation of imitation by human and robotic models. European Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 2415-2419.
- Stanley, J., Gowen, E., & Miall, R. C. (2007). Effects of agency on movement interference during observation of a moving dot stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 915-926.
- Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 830-846.
- van Schie, H. T., van Waterschoot, B. M., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Understanding action beyond imitation: Reversed compatibility effects of action observation in imitation and joint action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1493-1500.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Boyer, T. W., Longo, M. R., & Bertenthal, B. I. (2012) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.01.003 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Motor simulation beyond the dyad: Automatic imitation of multiple actors.
Cracco, E., De Coster, L., Andres, M., & Brass, M. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037/a0039737 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
- Authors
- Liepelt, R., Prinz, W., & Brass, M.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Ghent University (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Liepelt, Roman
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 426-434
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2105966142
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 9.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Keywords
- motor simulation, motor priming, non-human actors, communicative action, goal-directed action, embodied cognition, action observation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Communication, Cues, Female, Fingers, Gestures, Humans, Male, Movement, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Young Adult
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
