Cited by 113Action Observation and SynchronizationNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and Adaptation

Controlling automatic imitative tendencies: interactions between mirror neuron and cognitive control systems

Open access
Cross, Katy A., Torrisi, Salvatore, Reynolds Losin, Elizabeth A., Iacoboni, Marco·2013·NeuroImage

Abstract

Humans have an automatic tendency to imitate others. Although several regions commonly observed in social tasks have been shown to be involved in imitation control, there is little work exploring how these regions interact with one another. We used fMRI and dynamic causal modeling to identify imitation-specific control mechanisms and examine functional interactions between regions. Participants performed a pre-specified action (lifting their index or middle finger) in response to videos depicting the same two actions (biological cues) or dots moving with similar trajectories (non-biological cues). On congruent trials, the stimulus and response were similar (e.g. index finger response to index finger or left side dot stimulus), while on incongruent trials the stimulus and response were dissimilar (e.g. index finger response to middle finger or right side dot stimulus). Reaction times were slower on incongruent compared to congruent trials for both biological and non-biological stimuli, replicating previous findings that suggest the automatic imitative or spatially compatible (congruent) response must be controlled on incongruent trials. Neural correlates of the congruency effects were different depending on the cue type. The medial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate, inferior frontal gyrus pars opercularis (IFGpo) and the left anterior insula were involved specifically in controlling imitation. In addition, the IFGpo was also more active for biological compared to non-biological stimuli, suggesting that the region represents the frontal node of the human mirror neuron system (MNS). Effective connectivity analysis exploring the interactions between these regions, suggests a role for the mPFC and ACC in imitative conflict detection and the anterior insula in conflict resolution processes, which may occur through interactions with the frontal node of the MNS. We suggest an extension of the previous models of imitation control involving interactions between imitation-specific and general cognitive control 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 · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.060

Cites

107 of 107 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?

  • A number of studies showed engagement of regions associated with the MD network, including dorsal frontoparietal cortex, supplementary motor area, and anterior insula, during imitation control.

    “In addition, a number of studies showed engagement of regions associated with the MD network, including dorsal frontoparietal cortex, supplementary motor area (SMA) and anterior insula (Marsh, Bird, & Catmur, 2016;Cross & Iacoboni, 2013;Mengotti, Corradi-Dell'Acqua, & Rumiati, 2012;Crescentini, Mengotti, Grecucci, & Rumiati, 2011;Bien, Roebroeck, Goebel, & Sack, 2009).”

    From Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation (2018) · cites this paper as Cross & Iacoboni, 2013

    The Discussion reports anterior insula/frontal operculum involvement in imitation control, consistent with several previous studies. The paper does not identify that activity as part of an MD network or report supplementary motor area engagement in imitation control; it describes a frontoparietal network in the Results in relation to action observation and imitation cues, not as the claimed dorsal frontoparietal imitation-control network. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous fMRI studies on control of imitative tendencies have proposed mechanisms involving modulation of the mirror neuron system.

    “This is in line with previous fMRI studies examining control of imitative tendencies, which have proposed mechanisms involving MNS modulation (Spengler et al., 2009; Cross et al., 2013).”
  • Interference control during automatic imitation may involve an interaction between self-other distinction and general cognitive control mechanisms.

    “Recent research suggests that both self-other distinction and cognitive control processes may be involved in interference control during automatic imitation.”
  • In many circumstances, imitation is maladaptive and requires inhibition.

    “For example, in many circumstances, imitation is maladaptive and requires inhibition (Cross & Iacoboni, 2014;Cross, Torrisi, Losin, & Iacoboni, 2013;van Schie, van Waterschoot, & Bekkering, 2008;Newman-Norlund, van Schie, van Zuijlen, & Bekkering, 2007).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Bertenthal BI Longo MR Kosobud A 2006b Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 32 210 225 16634666
  2. Bien N Roebroeck A Goebel R Sack AT 2009b The brain’s intention to imitate: The neurobiology of intentional versus automatic imitation Cereb Cortex 19 2338 2351 19153108
  3. Brass M Ruby P Spengler S 2009b Inhibition of imitative behaviour and social cognition Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 364 2359 2367 19620107 PMC2865080

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cross, K. A., Torrisi, S., Reynolds Losin, E. A., & Iacoboni, M.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Cross, Katy A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
83
Pages
493-504
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170388758
Cited by
113
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4
FWCI
20.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Brain Mapping Medical Research Organization, Brain Mapping Support Foundation
  • Pierson-Lovelace Foundation
  • The Ahmanson Foundation
  • William M. and Linda R. Dietel Philanthropic Fund at the Northern Piedmont Community Foundation
  • Tamkin Foundation
  • Jennifer Jones-Simon Foundation
  • Capital Group Companies Charitable Foundation
  • Robson Family and Northstar Fund
  • National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) (RR12169, RR13642, RR00865)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH) (1F30MH091808-01A1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
mirror neuron system, cognitive control, spatial compatibility, response inhibition, medial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, effective connectivity, conflict detection, conflict resolution, dynamic causal modeling
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Nerve Net, Reflex, Feedback, Physiological, Young Adult, 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