Cited by 105Action Observation and SynchronizationMotor Control and AdaptationFree Will and Agency

Automatic imitation of biomechanically possible and impossible actions: Effects of priming movements versus goals.

Longo, Matthew R., Kosobud, Adam, Bertenthal, Bennett I.·2008·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Abstract

Recent behavioral, neuroimaging, and neurophysiological research suggests a common representational code mediating the observation and execution of actions; yet, the nature of this representational code is not well understood. The authors address this question by investigating (a) whether this observation-execution matching system (or mirror system) codes both the constituent movements of an action as well as its goal and (b) how such sensitivity is influenced by top-down effects of instructions. The authors tested the automatic imitation of observed finger actions while manipulating whether the movements were biomechanically possible or impossible, but holding the goal constant. When no mention was made of this difference (Experiment 1), comparable automatic imitation was elicited from possible and impossible actions, suggesting that the actions had been coded at the level of the goal. When attention was drawn to this difference (Experiment 2), however, only possible movements elicited automatic imitation. This sensitivity was specific to imitation, not affecting spatial stimulus-response compatibility (Experiment 3). These results suggest that automatic imitation is modulated by top-down influences, coding actions in terms of both movements and goals depending on the focus of attention.

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 · 10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.489

Cites

96 of 96 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?

  • The facilitating effects of observing a task-irrelevant moving finger were eliminated when the finger appeared to move in a biomechanically impossible manner, yet the response was still facilitated by the same finger when it was spatially compatible.

    “For example, the facilitating effects of observing a task irrelevant moving finger were eliminated when the finger appeared to move in a biomechanically impossible manner, yet the response was still facilitated by this same finger when it was spatially compatible (Longo et al., 2008).”

    From Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities (2012) · cites this paper as Longo et al., 2008

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous findings from the authors' lab showed that imitative compatibility effects were attenuated or eliminated by perturbing the naturalness of the stimulus, whereas spatial compatibility was not affected by these perturbations.

    “This result was foreshadowed by previous findings in our lab revealing that imitative compatibility effects were attenuated or eliminated by perturbing the naturalness of the stimulus, whereas spatial compatibility was not affected by these perturbations (Longo et al., 2008;Longo & Bertenthal, 2009).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Longo, M. R., Kosobud, A., & Bertenthal, B. I.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Indiana University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Published
2008
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
489-501
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
OpenAlex
W2085077219
Cited by
105
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 12
FWCI
11.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SBE9704764; BCS0116293, DGE-0202337)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
automatic imitation, mirror system, action observation, movement goals, top-down attention, action representation, spatial stimulus-response compatibility, finger movement
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Biomechanical Phenomena, Concept Formation, Female, Fingers, Humans, Imagination, Imitative Behavior, Male, Movement, Reaction Time

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