Cited by 63Action Observation and SynchronizationMotor Control and AdaptationEmbodied and Extended Cognition

Associative (not Hebbian) learning and the mirror neuron system

Cooper, Richard P., Cook, Richard, Dickinson, Anthony, Heyes, Cecilia M.·2013·Neuroscience Letters

Abstract

The associative sequence learning (ASL) hypothesis suggests that sensorimotor experience plays an inductive role in the development of the mirror neuron system, and that it can play this crucial role because its effects are mediated by learning that is sensitive to both contingency and contiguity. The Hebbian hypothesis proposes that sensorimotor experience plays a facilitative role, and that its effects are mediated by learning that is sensitive only to contiguity. We tested the associative and Hebbian accounts by computational modelling of automatic imitation data indicating that MNS responsivity is reduced more by contingent and signalled than by non-contingent sensorimotor training (Cook et al. [7]). Supporting the associative account, we found that the reduction in automatic imitation could be reproduced by an existing interactive activation model of imitative compatibility when augmented with Rescorla-Wagner learning, but not with Hebbian or quasi-Hebbian learning. The work argues for an associative, but against a Hebbian, account of the effect of sensorimotor training on automatic imitation. We argue, by extension, that associative learning is potentially sufficient for MNS development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.10.002

Cites

0 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?

  • Computational research supports the idea that automatic imitation arises from associative learning.

    “Finally, by comparing different mechanisms, computational research has supported the idea that automatic imitation is a consequence of associative learning (Cooper, Cook, et al., 2013).”

    From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as Cooper, Cook, et al., 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, R. P., Cook, R., Dickinson, A., & Heyes, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Birkbeck, University of London (GB)
  • City, University of London (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Richard P.
Venue
Neuroscience Letters
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
540
Pages
28-36
ISSN
0304-3940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1990319944
Cited by
63
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
10.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (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 › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
mirror neuron system, Hebbian learning, automatic imitation, sensorimotor training, contingency, contiguity, interactive activation model, computational modelling
MeSH terms
Animals, Association Learning, Computer Simulation, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Mirror Neurons

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