Cited by 87Action Observation and SynchronizationPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsEmbodied and Extended Cognition

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Heartfelt imitation: High interoceptive awareness is linked to greater automatic imitation

Open access
Ainley, Vivien, Brass, Marcel, Tsakiris, Manos·2014·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

'Interoceptive awareness', defined as the individual's awareness of internal body signals, modulates self/other distinction under conditions of multisensory integration. We examined here, for the first time, the potential impact of interoceptive awareness on self/other distinction in the motor domain. In automatic imitation, inhibition of imitation is an index of an individual's success in distinguishing internally generated motor representations from those triggered by observing another person's action. This is measured by the 'congruency effect', which is the difference between mean reaction times when the observed action is 'incongruent' with the required action and when it is 'congruent'. The present study compared the congruency effect in a typical finger lifting paradigm, with interoceptive awareness measured by heartbeat perception. Contrary to expectation, interoceptive awareness was positively correlated with the congruency effect and this effect depended on mean reaction times in the incongruent condition, indicating that good heartbeat perceivers had more difficulty inhibiting the tendency to imitate. Potentially, high interoceptive awareness involves stronger interoceptive representations of the consequences of an action, implying higher empathy, greater motor reactivity in response to observed action and hence a greater tendency to imitate. Our results may also tentatively be explained within a predictive coding account of interoception.

Overview

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.neuropsychologia.2014.05.010

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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 timing control task is likely not an adequate control for the factors affecting performance on counting-based measures of interoception.

    “Whilst newer research has advocated the use of a timing control task (Ainley et al., 2014), it is likely that this time estimation is not an adequate control for the factors affecting performance on counting based measures of interoception (Desmedt et al., 2020).”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Ainley et al., 2014

  • In typical individuals, a relationship has been observed between both interoceptive accuracy and alexithymia and the ability to inhibit automatic imitation.

    “Consistent with the high rates of alexithymia and interoceptive impairment in ASD, a relationship has been observed between both interoceptive accuracy (Ainley et al., 2014) and alexithymia (Sowden et al., 2016), and the ability to inhibit automatic imitation in typical individuals.”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Ainley et al., 2014

    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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cuenen, 2012, Accuracy and awareness of perception: Related, yet distinct, Biological Psychology, 92, 426
  2. Heyes, 2010, Automatic imitation, Psychological Bulletin, 44, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ainley, V., Brass, M., & Tsakiris, M.
Affiliations
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
  • Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Ainley, Vivien
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
60
Pages
21-28
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127381594
Cited by
87
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
FWCI
13.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Volkswagen Foundation (II/85064)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (262853)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
interoceptive awareness, automatic imitation, self-other distinction, heartbeat perception, congruency effect, motor representations, empathy, predictive coding, multisensory integration
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Awareness, Female, Heart Rate, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Reaction Time, Young Adult, Interoception

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