CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Action Observation and SynchronizationNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFree Will and Agency

To imitate or not: Avoiding imitation involves preparatory inhibition of motor resonance

Open access
Cross, Katy A., Iacoboni, Marco·2014·NeuroImage
DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.027PMC PMC4117687
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Stimulus-response compatibility (SRC)-the fact that some stimulus-response pairs are faster than others-is attributed in part to automatic activation of the stimulus-compatible response representation. Cognitive models of SRC propose that automatic response activation can be strategically suppressed if the automatic response is likely to interfere with behavior; in particular, suppression is thought to occur in preparation for incompatible responses and when the required stimulus-response mapping is unknown before stimulus presentation. We test this preparatory suppression hypothesis in the context of imitation, a special form of SRC particularly relevant to human social behavior. Using TMS, we measured muscle-specific corticospinal excitability during action observation (motor resonance) while human participants prepared to perform imitative and counterimitative responses to action videos. Motor resonance was suppressed during preparation to counterimitate and for unknown mappings, compared to preparation to imitate and a baseline measure of motor resonance. These results provide novel neurophysiological evidence that automatic activation of stimulus-compatible responses can be strategically suppressed when the automatic response is likely to interfere with task goals. Insofar as motor resonance measures mirror neuron system activity, these results also suggest that preparatory control of automatic imitative tendencies occurs through modulation of mirror neuron system activity.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using TMS during an action-observation imitation task, the authors found that motor resonance—muscle-specific corticospinal facilitation during observed action—was present when participants prepared to imitate but suppressed when they prepared to counterimitate or when the required mapping was unknown. This supports preparatory suppression models in which automatic stimulus-compatible response activation, here linked to mirror neuron system activity, is inhibited when imitation would interfere with task goals.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1 (behavioral, no TMS), reaction times showed a significant preparation × response-mapping interaction, F(1,9)=4.57, p=0.036: imitation was faster than counterimitation for both prepared trials, t(9)=6.06, p=0.0001, and no-preparation trials, t(9)=3.43, p=0.004, but the imitation advantage was larger when preparatory information was provided, t(9)=2.09, p=0.033.
  • In Experiment 2 (TMS/MEPs), the 3×2 ANOVA on normalized MEPs showed a main effect of preparatory condition, F(2,15)=5.49, p=0.006, and a preparatory condition × observed action interaction, F(2,15)=3.27, p=0.044.
  • Motor resonance (greater FDI excitability for observed squeeze than release) occurred only during preparation to imitate, t(15)=2.02, p=0.031; it was absent during preparation to counterimitate, t(15)=-0.59, p=0.719, and for unknown mappings, t(15)=0.39, p=0.351. Motor resonance was significantly greater for preparation to imitate than preparation to counterimitate, t(15)=2.71, p=0.008, and than unknown mapping, t(15)=1.82, p=0.044.
  • Compared with a control task baseline, motor resonance during preparation to imitate was similar to baseline, t(15)=0.23, p=0.409, whereas it was significantly decreased during preparation to counterimitate, t(15)=2.35, p=0.017, and showed a trend toward decrease for unknown mapping, t(15)=1.67, p=0.058.

Methods

  • Experiment 1: 10 right-handed participants (2/8 M/F, 18–24 years) performed an imitation task without TMS, making flexion or extension responses with the right index finger to action videos; EMG from FDI and EDC was used to measure reaction time.
  • Experiment 2: 21 participants were recruited, 16 analyzed (4/12 M/F, 18–34 years); single TMS pulses were delivered over left M1 during action-observation videos, and MEPs from the right FDI were normalized to the run mean. A separate control task with arbitrary color-response mapping provided a baseline measure of motor resonance.
  • Analyses used repeated-measures ANOVAs and planned t-tests; Experiment 1 tested whether the compatibility effect was reduced when the mapping was unknown, and Experiment 2 tested whether motor resonance magnitude differed across preparatory conditions and from the control baseline.

Limitations

  • The paper states that TMS provides only a primary motor cortex readout of MNS activity, so the locus of preparatory suppression—input to the MNS, the MNS itself, or MNS output to M1—cannot be determined.
  • The paper notes that the actions were very simple for TMS compatibility, raising external-validity questions about real-world imitation; one response was object-directed (key press) and the other was not (finger lift); and the precise timing of stimulation during action observation could affect the pattern.
  • The paper also states that the control task was run separately rather than randomized with the imitation task, and that a ceiling effect on corticospinal excitability in the NoPrep condition cannot be entirely ruled out.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.027

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

22 tests recomputed · 1 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

12 of 60 cited sources checked · 8 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Facilitation of corticospinal excitability in muscles involved in an observed action (motor resonance) is a putative measure of mirror neuron system activity.

    “Facilitation of corticospinal excitability specifically in the muscles involved in performing an observed action (motor resonance) is a putative measure of MNS activity (Fadiga et al., 1995; Avenanti et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fadiga et al., 1995 source
    • cites Avenanti et al., 2007 source
  • Study design and conductown data

    A pilot study confirmed that the stimuli and timing evoked motor resonance.

    “Although short periods of action observation have only rarely been used in the motor resonance literature (Barchiesi and Cattaneo, 2013), a pilot study confirmed that the stimuli and timing did in fact evoke motor resonance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Barchiesi and Cattaneo, 2013 source
  • Premisecitation

    Patients with brain damage who imitate uncontrollably imply that an active inhibitory mechanism normally controls automatic imitation.

    “and the existence of patients who imitate uncontrollably after brain damage (Lhermitte et al., 1986; De Renzi et al., 1996) suggests that some active inhibitory mechanism is required to control automatic imitation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lhermitte et al., 1986 source
    • cites De Renzi et al., 1996 source
  • Premisecitation

    Contextual modulation of imitative behaviors is similar in laboratory tasks and naturalistic environments.

    “however, recent work demonstrates that contextual modulation of imitative behaviors is similar when they are in the laboratory with simplistic tasks such as this one and in more naturalistic environments as social mimicry (VanBaaren 2003; Leighton 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites VanBaaren 2003

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

    • cites Leighton 2010 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    The findings align with theories that MNS modulation helps control unwanted imitation.

    “These findings are consistent with theories proposing MNS modulation as a way to control unwanted imitation (Spengler et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Spengler et al., 2009 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 42
  • May combine two claims. 23

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

    Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Spengler et al., 2009 source
    • cites Cross et al., 2013 source

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

    Premisecitation

    Mirror neuron system activity and imitative compatibility effects can be modulated by attention and contextual factors.

    “While there is accumulating evidence that both mirror neuron system activity (Newman Norlund 2007; Catmur 2007; Chong 2008; Molenberghs 2012) and imitative compatibility effects (Van Baaren 2003; Likowski 2008; Chong 2009; Liepelt 2009; Leighton 2010) can be modulated by attention and contextual factors”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Newman Norlund 2007 source

      The paper reports greater mirror neuron system activity when participants prepared complementary rather than imitative actions and says that changing an action’s context can modulate the effects of action observation (Abstract). It does not show that attention modulated this activity; instead, it says attentional differences were unlikely to explain the observed effects. This citation is attached to the mirror-neuron-system part of the sentence, not the imitative-compatibility-effects part. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Catmur 2007 source
    • cites Chong 2008 source

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

    Premisecitation

    Attention and task difficulty are known non-specific modulators of corticospinal excitability and plasticity.

    “Indeed, non-specific factors such as attention and task difficulty are known to modulate corticospinal excitability and plasticity (Beck and Hallett, 2010; Conte et al., 2007; Pearce and Kidgell, 2009; Stefan et al., 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Beck and Hallett, 2010 source

      The Results (Movement of the right hand, SRT versus CRT; page unavailable) show that the more demanding choice task produced greater surround inhibition, measured with motor-evoked potentials. The Discussion (Mechanism of SI; page unavailable) says attention may explain that difference and reports evidence that attention influences rTMS-induced MEP facilitation. It does not establish that both attention and task difficulty are known modulators of corticospinal plasticity in general. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Conte et al., 2007 source
    • cites Pearce and Kidgell, 2009 source

      The Results and Discussion (page numbers not provided) show that the more difficult precision task increased motor-evoked-potential amplitude, supporting task difficulty as a modulator of cortical excitability. The paper does not establish attention as a modulator, and it proposes measuring plasticity in future work rather than demonstrating a plasticity effect. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The object-directedness difference probably does not affect the overall results, since the human MNS responds to transitive and intransitive actions and automatic imitation occurs for both.

    “While it would be ideal for responses to be similar on this dimension, this seems less likely to effect the overall results, given that the human mirror neuron system responds to both transitive and intransitive actions (Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004) and that automatic imitation has also been demonstrated for both transitive and intransitive actions (Press et al., 2008; Bertenthal et al. 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004 source
    • cites Press et al., 2008 source
    • cites Bertenthal et al. 2006 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, imitation responses were faster than counterimitation responses in both Prep and NoPrep trials, but the advantage was larger when preparatory information was given.

    “Although imitation was faster than counterimitation for both Prep (t(9)=6.06, p=0.0001) and NoPrep trials (t(9)=3.43, p=0.004), the difference between imitation and counterimitation was greater when preparatory information was provided than when it was not (t(9)=2.09, p=0.033; Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, the three-way ANOVA on reaction times found significant main effects of preparation, response mapping, and action observation.

    “The 3-way ANOVA (Prep/NoPrep × Imitate/Counterimitate × AO/NoAO) on reaction times showed significant effects of preparation (F(1,9)=102.6, p<0.0001), response mapping (F(1,9)=55.6, p<0.0001) and AO (F(1,9)=70.0, p<0.0001; AO=434±17; No AO=495±16) (Figure 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, a 3×2 ANOVA on normalized MEPs from the imitation task found a main effect of preparatory condition and a preparatory-condition × observed-action interaction.

    “The 3×2 ANOVA (PrepCI/PrepIm/NoPrep × Squeeze/Release) on normalized MEPs from the imitation task revealed main effects of preparatory condition (F(2,15)=5.49, p=0.006) and an interaction between preparatory condition and observed action (F(2,15)=3.27, p=0.044), indicating that motor resonance in the imitation task was modulated depending on the preparatory state (Figure 5A).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Reaction times are faster when a stimulus and its required response share a property than when they do not.

    “Stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) describes the observation that reaction times are faster when a stimulus and its required response share some property (for example, they have similar spatial location), as compared to when they do not share any properties (Shaffer 1965; Kornblum 1990).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Shaffer 1965 source
    • cites Kornblum 1990 source

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

    Premisecitation

    When the required mapping is known before the stimulus, the automatic response route is suppressed selectively for incompatible trials, so compatible trials have a speed advantage.

    “In the alternative, more common scenario—when the required mapping is known before the stimulus—the automatic response route is suppressed selectively for incompatible trials, so that compatible trials have a speed advantage due to automatic response activation (Shaffer, 1965; Heister and Schroeder-Heister, 1994; De Jong, 1995; Vu and Proctor, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Shaffer, 1965 source
    • cites Heister and Schroeder-Heister, 1994 source
    • cites De Jong, 1995 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The mirror neuron system responds during observation and execution of similar actions.

    “In the case of imitation, the mirror neuron system (MNS) has been hypothesized to underlie automatic response activation (Ferrari et al., 2009), since it responds during the observation and execution of similar actions and provides input to primary motor cortex (Di Pellegrino et al., 1992; Iacoboni et al., 1999; Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Di Pellegrino et al., 1992 source
    • cites Iacoboni et al., 1999 source
    • cites Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004 source

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    Muscle activation time was determined using a double threshold procedure and verified visually while blind to condition.

    “The time of muscle activation was determined for flexion (FDI) and extension (EDC) responses using custom MATLAB software implementing a double threshold procedure (Lidierth, 1986) and verified visually for each trial while blind to condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lidierth, 1986 source

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Each preparatory condition followed each other condition with equal probability, and target conditions and action observation trials were balanced.

    “Each of the three preparatory conditions (PrepIm, PrepCI, NoPrep) followed each other condition with equal probability, as did imitate and counterimitate target conditions, and AO and no AO trials. There were an equal number of flexion and extension responses for each condition, with squeeze and release AO videos split evenly between responses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The significant two-way interaction was explored with planned paired t-tests based on directional predictions.

    “Because we had clear directional predictions from previous compatibility studies, the significant 2-way interaction (Prep/NoPrep × Imitate/Counterimitate) was explored with planned paired t-tests to determine whether the compatibility effects (difference between counterimitation and imitation) were reduced in NoPrep compared to Prep trials as proposed by the suppression hypothesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    An average of 14.3 ± 0.4 MEPs per condition were analyzed for each subject, out of a possible 16.

    “As a result of these procedures, an average of 14.3 ± 0.4 MEPs per condition were analyzed for each subject (total possible = 16).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The color-response mapping in the control task was counterbalanced across participants.

    “The color-response mapping was counterbalanced across participants: half of subjects performed finger flexion for cyan squares and extension for magenta squares and the other half performed the opposite mapping.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Preparatory suppression manifests behaviorally as reduced compatibility effects in unknown mapping trials.

    “This preparatory suppression manifests behaviorally as reduced compatibility effects in the unknown mapping trials: the compatible response no longer benefits from automatic response activation making compatible and incompatible reaction times similar.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Shaffer, 1965 source
    • cites De Jong, 1995 source
    • cites Vu and Proctor, 2004 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The number of trials in each of the three preparatory conditions was balanced.

    “Because the goal of the study was to demonstrate modulation of MEPs obtained during the preparatory period, we balanced the number of each of the three preparatory conditions: There were 64 PrepIm, 64 PrepCI and 64 NoPrep trials and 32 trials in each preparatory condition included an AO video (16 squeeze, 16 release; each AO video presented once in each preparatory condition).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The design was balanced with 16 MEPs per preparatory condition and observed action in Experiment 2.

    “This created a balanced 3 (PrepIm/PrepCI/NoPrep) × 2 (Squeeze/Release) design with 16 MEPs per preparatory condition and observed action in Experiment 2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The imitation task was analyzed with a 3 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA, and the interaction was explored with one-tailed t-tests based on a-priori directional predictions.

    “First, we analyzed the imitation task with a 3 (Preparatory condition: PrepCI, PrepIm, NoPrep) × 2 (Action observed: Squeeze, Release) repeated measures ANOVA to determine whether there was a preparatory effect on motor resonance consistent with suppression models. We explored the interaction with one-tailed t-tests based on clear a-priori directional predictions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The action observation video factor was counterbalanced and should not affect results with respect to preparatory modulation of compatibility effects.

    “There were not a sufficient number of trials to examine the effect of the AO video (squeeze vs. release) on reaction times, but this factor was counterbalanced and therefore should not affect results with respect to preparatory modulation of compatibility effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The mirror neuron system has been hypothesized to underlie automatic response activation in imitation.

    “In the case of imitation, the mirror neuron system (MNS) has been hypothesized to underlie automatic response activation (Ferrari et al., 2009), since it responds during the observation and execution of similar actions and provides input to primary motor cortex (Di Pellegrino et al., 1992; Iacoboni et al., 1999; Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ferrari et al., 2009 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Suppression occurs in preparation for incompatible responses.

    “In particular, suppression occurs in preparation for incompatible responses (when the stimulus-compatible response is incorrect) and in preparation for trials in which the required stimulus-response mapping is unknown in advance of the stimulus (when the stimulus-compatible response is incorrect half the time).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Shaffer, 1965 source
    • cites De Jong, 1995 source
    • cites Vu and Proctor, 2004 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    A control task was included as a baseline with similar motor preparation but no stimulus-response compatibility.

    “A second control task was included as a baseline condition in which similar two-forced choice motor preparation was required, but in the absence of any stimulus-response compatibility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Experiment 1 was run without TMS to ensure that the novel paradigm reproduced behavioral effects associated with preparatory suppression models.

    “In Experiment 1, we first ran a group of participants without applying TMS to ensure that our novel paradigm reproduced behavioral effects associated with preparatory suppression models (Experiment 1), because twitches from supra-threshold TMS are likely to interfere with reaction time measures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: TMS-induced muscle twitches interfere with reaction time measures.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Suppression occurs in preparation for trials in which the required stimulus-response mapping is unknown in advance.

    “In particular, suppression occurs in preparation for incompatible responses (when the stimulus-compatible response is incorrect) and in preparation for trials in which the required stimulus-response mapping is unknown in advance of the stimulus (when the stimulus-compatible response is incorrect half the time).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Shaffer, 1965 source
    • cites De Jong, 1995 source
    • cites Vu and Proctor, 2004 source

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Experiment 1 participants were right-handed, neurologically healthy, and not taking psychoactive medications.

    “Participants were right-handed, neurologically healthy and were not taking psychoactive medications.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Automatic activation of a stimulus-compatible response can be strategically suppressed when it is likely to interfere with task goals.

    “Some cognitive models of SRC suggest that it is possible to strategically suppress the automatic activation of a stimulus-compatible response when this response is likely to interfere with task goals (Shaffer, 1965; De Jong, 1995; Vu and Proctor, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Shaffer, 1965 source
    • cites De Jong, 1995 source
    • cites Vu and Proctor, 2004 source

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The control task was performed in a separate run because pilot studies showed it was not possible to randomize it with the imitation task.

    “Although ideally the baseline condition would be randomized with the imitation task conditions, pilot studies made it clear that this would not be possible due to the difficulty remembering and switching between the different stimulus-response mapping rules associated with the two tasks. As such, the control task was performed in a separate 7-minute run comprising 64 trials (32 AO videos: 16 sque”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    MEPs were excluded when pre-TMS EMG activity was identified, with visual inspection blind to condition, which occurred in 2.7% of trials.

    “Since even very small muscle contractions increase MEP size (Rösler et al., 2002), MEPs were excluded when activity was identified in the 100ms prior to TMS stimulation upon visual inspection while blind to condition (only 2.7% of trials).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Rösler et al., 2002 source

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Trials with indeterminate EMG onset or response action were discarded, which occurred in 1.5% of trials.

    “When EMG onset or response action could not be determined due to excessive background activity or other noise, the trial was discarded (only 1.5% of trials).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    MEP amplitudes were normalized by dividing each MEP by the mean of all MEPs from the same run to reduce between-subject and between-run variability.

    “MEP amplitudes were normalized to reduce the impact of between-subject and between-run variability (Baldissera et al., 2001). This was accomplished by dividing each MEP measurement by the mean of all MEPs from the same run. Therefore, normalized MEP amplitudes represent proportion of the run mean amplitude.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Baldissera et al., 2001 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The analysis identified which preparatory periods showed significant motor resonance and whether motor resonance magnitude was greater for PrepIm than NoPrep and PrepCI.

    “We identified (1) which preparatory periods showed significant motor resonance (greater MEP amplitude during observation of an action involving the FDI, squeeze, compared to an action not involving the FDI, release; see Figure 3) and (2) whether the magnitude of motor resonance (the difference between squeeze and release MEPs) was greater for PrepIm than NoPrep and PrepCI.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisereasoning

    The FDI muscle was chosen for MEPs because it is selectively active for squeeze compared to release actions and because it is easier to obtain stable single-muscle MEPs from the FDI than from the EDC.

    “The FDI muscle was chosen for MEPs because it is selectively active for the squeeze compared to release actions depicted in the AO videos (shown below) and because it is easier to obtain stable single-muscle MEPs from the FDI compared to the EDC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: It is easier to obtain stable single-muscle MEPs from the FDI than from the EDC.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Imitative compatibility effects are attributed to automatic activation of the stimulus-compatible motor representation.

    “Like many other forms of SRC in which participants respond to static symbolic stimuli (De Jong et al., 1994; Eimer et al., 1995), imitative compatibility effects are attributed to automatic activation of the stimulus-compatible motor representation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites De Jong et al., 1994 source
    • cites Eimer et al., 1995 source

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    Errors and outliers greater than 3 SD from the mean were excluded from reaction time analysis.

    “Mean percent error and reaction times (errors and outliers greater than 3 SD from the mean excluded) for each condition and subject were calculated and analyzed with 3-way repeated measures ANOVAs [2 (Prep, NoPrep) × 2 (Imitate, Counterimitate) × 2 (AO video, No AO video)].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    MEPs from error trials were excluded from analysis.

    “MEPs from error trials were also excluded from analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Extending the SRC model to imitation suggests that the mirror neuron system may be suppressed to avoid imitation when it is likely to interfere with motor responses.

    “When extended to imitation, this model of SRC suggests that the MNS may be suppressed in order to avoid imitation when it is likely to interfere with motor responses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Experiment 2 analyzed data from 16 participants after excluding 1 for data loss and 4 for inability to relax the FDI muscle.

    “Data from 1 subject were lost due to data collection error. In addition, 4 participants were unable to relax the FDI muscle consistently despite repeated reminders and were therefore excluded (11-43% of trials with >50μV root mean squared EMG activity during 100ms pre-TMS window vs. 0-5% in relaxed subjects). Data from the remaining 16 participants (4/12 M/F) were analyzed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The mirror neuron system provides input to primary motor cortex.

    “In the case of imitation, the mirror neuron system (MNS) has been hypothesized to underlie automatic response activation (Ferrari et al., 2009), since it responds during the observation and execution of similar actions and provides input to primary motor cortex (Di Pellegrino et al., 1992; Iacoboni et al., 1999; Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Di Pellegrino et al., 1992 source
    • cites Iacoboni et al., 1999 source
    • cites Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The control-task comparison supports suppression: resonance matched baseline when preparing to imitate and fell below baseline for counterimitation and unknown mapping.

    “Comparison with this control task supports the suppression account: Motor resonance was similar to baseline during preparation to imitate, and lower than baseline during the counterimitation and unknown mapping conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    A ceiling effect on corticospinal excitability, rather than suppression, remains a possible explanation for the absent motor resonance in NoPrep.

    “However, we cannot entirely rule out the alternative possibility that the lack of motor resonance observed in the NoPrep condition is caused by a ceiling effect on corticospinal excitability, rather than suppression of motor resonance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Motor resonance during action observation appears to be a default state that is adjusted according to task demands.

    “Thus, is seems that resonance in the motor system during action observation occurs by default, and that this default state is modulated depending on task demands.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A general rise in MEP size for NoPrep, possibly from greater difficulty, could account for the larger squeeze MEPs.

    “This finding is easily explained by a non-specific increase in MEP magnitude for the NoPrep condition, perhaps due to the increased difficulty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study used one object-directed response (pressing a key) and one non-object-directed response (lifting a finger), a potential issue.

    “Another potential problem is that one of the response actions used in the study was object-directed (press key) and the other was not (lift finger off key).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Motor evoked potentials are known to drift substantially over time, which motivates normalizing them within task blocks.

    “MEPs are known to drift significantly over time, leading to the strategy of normalizing MEPs within task blocks (Baldissera et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Baldissera et al., 2001 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The first experiment reproduces earlier behavioral findings that support the suppression hypothesis in a more complex task and confirms the model's predictions for the MEPs in the second experiment.

    “Thus, Experiment 1 replicates previous behavioral results supporting the suppression hypothesis in this more complex task, and validates the predictions based on this model for the MEPs in Experiment 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The exact site of preparatory motor-resonance modulation remains unknown; TMS only reads M1 output from the MNS, so it cannot distinguish inhibition of MNS input, the MNS itself, or MNS-to-M1 output.

    “It is important to note, however, that the specific locus of this preparatory modulation of motor resonance requires further study; since TMS gives access only to the primary motor cortex readout of MNS activity, it is impossible to say whether the preparatory suppression observed here occurs through inhibition of input to the MNS, the MNS itself, or output from the MNS to M1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Because the imitative actions were very simple, the task's external validity for real-world imitation is questionable.

    “In the present study the imitative actions were very simple in order to replicate previous SRC literature and accommodate the methodological requirements of TMS. This raises questions about external validity of the task with regard to real world imitation”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Imitative interference tasks are relevant to real-world mimicry.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Imitation is a form of stimulus-response compatibility involving human actions, with responses that are stimulus-compatible in spatial and kinetic features.

    “Imitation—the copying of others actions—is a form of SRC involving human actions, where responses are stimulus-compatible with respect to spatial and kinetic features (Brass et al., 2000; Stürmer et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brass et al., 2000 source
    • cites Stürmer et al., 2000 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results support growing evidence that automatic imitation can be suppressed via mirror-neuron-system modulation, and that this suppression can be preparatory.

    “Thus, our data add to accumulating evidence that one mechanism used to suppress automatic imitative tendencies may be through modulation of the mirror neuron system, and this suppression can occur in a preparatory manner.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Using a two-stage method allowed the authors to compare difference scores, which are less affected by variations in absolute MEP size, across conditions collected in separate task runs.

    “Using the two stage method allowed us to compared difference scores, which are less susceptible to variations in absolute MEP size, when examining conditions collected in different task runs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
51 of 51

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    TMS-induced muscle twitches interfere with reaction time measures.

    “because twitches from supra-threshold TMS are likely to interfere with reaction time measures”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants were in a preparatory state during the action observation video when TMS was applied.

    “This very short period between AO video onset and TMS stimulation was chosen to increase the likelihood that participants were in the appropriate preparatory state during stimulation, since the presence of the AO video signals that a response is not required immediately and therefore may reduce preparation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    It is easier to obtain stable single-muscle MEPs from the FDI than from the EDC.

    “because it is easier to obtain stable single-muscle MEPs from the FDI compared to the EDC”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Imitative interference tasks are relevant to real-world mimicry.

    “This provides some support for the assumption that imitative interference tasks are relevant to real-world mimicry.”
4 of 4

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value across alpha = .05: F(2,15)=3.27, p = .044

    Major

    The paper reports p = .044 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .066. The two fall on opposite sides of alpha = .05. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .066

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(2,15)=5.49, p = .006

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .006 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .016. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .016

2 of 2

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.

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 15) = 3.27reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .066The two fall on opposite sides of .05

    “F(2,15)=3.27, p = .044”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 15) = 5.49reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .016

    “F(2,15)=5.49, p = .006”

  • Not confirmedF(1, 9) = 4.57reported p = .036 · recomputed p = .061

    “F(1,9)=4.57, p = .036”

  • ConsistentF(1, 9) = 102.6reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,9)=102.6, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 9) = 55.6reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,9)=55.6, p < .0001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 9) = 70reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,9)=70.0, p < .0001”

  • Consistentt(9) = 6.06reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(9)=6.06, p = .0001”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(9) = 3.43reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .008

    “t(9)=3.43, p = .004”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(9) = 2.09reported p = .033 · recomputed p = .066

    “t(9)=2.09, p = .033”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • ConsistentF(1, 9) = 5.1reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .050

    “F(1,9)=5.1, p = .027”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(15) = 2.02reported p = .031 · recomputed p = .062

    “t(15)=2.02, p = .031”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(15) = -0.59reported p = .719 · recomputed p = .564

    “t(15)=-0.59, p = .719”

    The paper states the test is one-tailed in the other direction

  • Consistentt(15) = 0.39reported p = .351 · recomputed p = .702

    “t(15)=0.39, p = .351”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(15) = 2.71reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .016

    “t(15)=2.71, p = .008”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(15) = 1.82reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .089

    “t(15)=1.82, p = .044”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(15) = 3.79reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(15)=3.79, p = .002”

  • Consistentt(15) = 3.17reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “t(15)=3.17, p = .006”

  • Consistentt(15) = 0.72reported p = .48 · recomputed p = .483

    “t(15)=0.72, p = .48”

  • Consistentt(15) = 2.27reported p = .019 · recomputed p = .038

    “t(15)=2.27, p = .019”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(15) = 0.23reported p = .409 · recomputed p = .821

    “t(15)=0.23, p = .409”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(15) = 2.35reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .033

    “t(15)=2.35, p = .017”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(15) = 1.67reported p = .058 · recomputed p = .116

    “t(15)=1.67, p = .058”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

22 of 22

Self-check

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

  • Interaction F statistic does not match the paired t-test of the same effect

    Major

    In a two-by-two repeated-measures design, the F statistic for the interaction equals the square of the paired t statistic testing the difference between the two compatibility effects. The reported t of 2.09 gives F = 4.3681, not 4.57.

    Reported 4.57 · recomputed 4.3681

  • Repeated-measures ANOVA reports the wrong denominator degrees of freedom

    Minor

    For 16 participants, a three-level within-participant preparatory condition has 2 × 15 = 30 denominator degrees of freedom in a univariate repeated-measures ANOVA, not 15. This applies to both the preparatory-condition main effect and its interaction with observed action.

    Reported 15 · recomputed 30

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cross, K. A., & Iacoboni, M.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Cross, Katy A.
ORCID
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
91
Pages
228-236
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.01.027
PMC
PMC4117687
OpenAlex
W2060488961
Cited by
54
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2
FWCI
10.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) (RR12169, RR13642, RR00865)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (5F30MH091808-02)
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH)
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 › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
imitation, stimulus-response compatibility, motor resonance, action observation, mirror neuron system, corticospinal excitability, response preparation, response suppression
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Cues, Electromyography, Female, Hand, Humans

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