Reaction time indices of automatic imitation measure imitative response tendencies
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
In his review, Ramsey (2018) argues that it is currently unclear what reaction time indices of automatic imitation measure due to lacking research on their validity and domain-specificity. In our commentary, we argue that this conclusion is based on two misconceptions, namely that automatic imitation was designed as a laboratory measure of motor mimicry and that psychometric approaches to validity can readily be applied to experimental settings. We then show that reaction time indices of automatic imitation measure covert imitative response tendencies. Furthermore, while irrelevant for their validity, we argue that these indices are associated with some, but not necessarily all, types of overt imitation. Finally, we argue that mapping out the brain networks does not suffice to understand the brain processes underlying imitative control.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 congruency effect serves as an index of imitative response tendencies.
“This congruency effect is a measure of imitative response tendencies (Cracco & Brass, 2019), and has now been reliably observed across a wide range of effectors”
From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as Cracco & Brass, 2019
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 46 · Cited by 45
- Authors
- Cracco, E., & Brass, M.
- Affiliations
- Ghent University (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Cracco, Emiel
- Venue
- Consciousness and Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 68
- Pages
- 115-118
- ISSN
- 1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2907444865
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Consciousness and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO18/PDO/049)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
- Keywords
- automatic imitation, domain specificity, brain networks
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Brain, Cognition, Humans, Imitative Behavior, 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.
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
