CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 183Action Observation and SynchronizationFree Will and AgencyMotor Control and Adaptation

Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions

Bertenthal, Bennett I., Longo, Matthew R., Kosobud, Adam·2006·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
DOI 10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.210
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Clear and unequivocal evidence shows that observation of object affordances or transitive actions facilitates the activation of a compatible response. By contrast, the evidence showing response facilitation following observation of intransitive actions is less conclusive because automatic imitation and spatial compatibility have been confounded. Three experiments tested whether observation of a finger movement (i.e., an intransitive action) in a choice reaction-time task facilitates the corresponding finger movement response because of imitation, a common spatial code, or some combination of both factors. The priming effects of a spatial and an imitative stimulus were tested in combination (Experiment 1), in opposition (Experiment 2), and independently (Experiment 3). Contrary to previous findings, the evidence revealed significant contributions from both automatic imitation and spatial compatibility, but the priming effects from an automatic tendency to imitate declined significantly across a block of trials whereas the effects of spatial compatibility remained constant or increased slightly. These differential effects suggest that priming associated with automatic imitation is mediated by a different regime than priming associated with spatial compatibility.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.210

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 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?

  • 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).”

    From To imitate or not: Avoiding imitation involves preparatory inhibition of motor resonance (2014) · cites this paper as Bertenthal et al. 2006

  • Later studies have shown that automatic imitation is not dependent on stimulus salience or spatial compatibility.

    “more recent studies corrected these problems and confirmed that automatic imitation was independent of stimulus salience or spatial compatibility”

    From Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities (2012) · cites this paper as Bertenthal et al., 2006

  • The S-R task results in Experiment 1 replicate earlier findings that participants imitating a tapping finger respond faster when the imperative stimulus and response spatially correspond.

    “The results from the S-R task replicate previous findings showing that participants instructed to imitate a tapping finger respond faster when the position of the imperative stimulus and the response spatially correspond than when they do not (e.g., Bertenthal et al., 2006).”

    From Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities (2012) · cites this paper as Bertenthal et al., 2006

  • The authors previously reported differences in the time course over trials for spatial and imitative compatibility.

    “In addition, we previously reported differences in the time course over trials for spatial and imitative compatibility (Bertenthal et al., 2006).”

    From Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities (2012) · cites this paper as Bertenthal et al., 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bertenthal, B. I., Longo, M. R., & Kosobud, A.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2006
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
210-225
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
DOI
10.1037/0096-1523.32.2.210
OpenAlex
W2020234570
Cited by
183
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
FWCI
16.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SBE9704764; BCS0116293, DGE-0202337)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
automatic imitation, spatial compatibility, action observation, finger movement, response priming, choice reaction time, object affordances, transitive actions
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Choice Behavior, Fingers, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Movement, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Space Perception

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