CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 127Action Observation and SynchronizationSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFree Will and Agency

Understanding action beyond imitation: reversed compatibility effects of action observation in imitation and joint action.

van Schie, Hein T., van Waterschoot, Boris M., Bekkering, Harold·2008·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
DOI 10.1037/a0011750
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A robust finding in imitation literature is that people perform their actions more readily if they are congruent with the behavior of another person. These action congruency effects are typically explained by the idea that the observation of someone else acting automatically activates our motor system in a directly matching way. In the present study action congruency effects were investigated between an imitation task and a complementary action task. Subjects imitated or complemented a virtual actor's grasp on a manipulandum. In both tasks, a color-cue could be presented forcing subjects to ignore the task rule and execute a predefined grasp. Reaction times revealed a reversal of congruency effects in the complementary action task, suggesting that subjects were able to circumvent the automatic tendency to copy actions or postures of another person. In 2 additional control experiments, congruency effects were replicated, and a Simon effect was identified to underlie faster responses in the imitation task. These results make a case against current theoretical views on imitation and direct matching in favor of more flexible models of perception-action coupling.

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/a0011750

Cites

4 of 4 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 reverse compatibility effect in response to human movements has been reported when task context shifts participants' attentional or intentional set from imitation to communication or another complementary action.

    “In fact, a reversal has been reported when the context of the task shifts participants' attentional or intentional set from imitation to communication or some other complementary action (Liepelt, Prinz, & Brass, 2010;van Schie, Waterschoot, & Bekkering, 2008).”

    From Is automatic imitation a specialized form of stimulus–response compatibility? Dissociating imitative and spatial compatibilities (2012) · cites this paper as van Schie, Waterschoot, & Bekkering, 2008

  • 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).”

    From Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation (2018) · cites this paper as van Schie, van Waterschoot, & Bekkering, 2008

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: 46

  1. Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  2. Babiloni, C., Babiloni, F., Carducci, F., Cincotti, F., Cocozza, G., Del Percio, C., et al. (2002). Human cortical electroencephalography (EEG) rhythms during the observation of simple aimless movements: A highresolution EEG study. Neuroimage, 17 (2), 559-572.
  3. Bekkering, H., Wohlschlager, A., & Gattis, M. (2000). Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directed. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 53 (1), 153-164.
  4. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106(1-2):3-22.
  5. Brass, M., Zysset, S., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2001). The inhibition of imitative response tendencies. Neuroimage, 14 (6), 1416-1423.
  6. Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., et al. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An fMRI study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13 (2), 400-404.
  7. Buccino, G., Vogt, S., Ritzl, A., Fink, G. R., Zilles, K., Freund, H. J., et al. (2004). Neural circuits underlying imitation learning of hand actions: An event-related fMRI study. Neuron, 42 (2), 323-334.
  8. Cesario, J., Plaks, J. E., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Automatic social behavior as motivated preparation to interact. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 90 (6), 893-910.
  9. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76 (6), 893-910.
  10. Craighero, L., Bello, A., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hand action preparation influences the responses to hand pictures. Neuropsychologia, 40 (5), 492-502.
  11. De Maeght, S., & Prinz, W. (2004). Action induction through action observation. Psychological Research, 68(2-3):97-114.
  12. di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (1992). Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91 (1), 176-180.
  13. Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., & Olivier, E. (2005). Human motor cortex excitability during the perception of others' action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15 (2), 213-218.
  14. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R Compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48 (6), 483-492.
  15. Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2002). The neural correlates of action understanding in non-human primates. In M. I. Stamenov & V. Gallese (Eds.), Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language (pp. 13-36). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  16. Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Kiraly, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415 (6873), 755.
  17. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). feedback mechanism in performance control: With special reference to the ideomotor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73-99.
  18. Heyes, C. (2001). Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5 (6), 253-261.
  19. Heyes, C., Bird, G., Johnson, H., & Haggard, P. (2005). Experience modulates automatic imitation. Cognitive Brain Research, 22 (2), 233-240.
  20. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55 (4), 270-279.
  21. Hommel, B. (1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59 (3), 176-186.
  22. Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849-878; discussion 878-937.
  23. Hurley, S., & Chater, N. (Eds.). (2005a). Perspectives on imitation. From neuroscience to social science (Vol. 1. Mechanisms of imitation and imitation in animals). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  24. Hurley, S., & Chater, N. (Eds.). (2005b). Perspectives on imitation. From neuroscience to social science (Vol. 2. Imitation, human development, and culture). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  25. Knuf, L., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). An analysis of ideomotor action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130 (4), 779-798.
  26. Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14 (4), 334-339.
  27. Maeda, F., Kleiner-Fisman, G., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2002). Motor facilitation while observing hand actions: Specificity of the effect and role of observer's orientation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87 (3), 1329-1335.
  28. Nicoletti, R., & Umilta, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56 (3), 144-150.
  29. Nishitani, N., & Hari, R. (2002). Viewing lip forms: Cortical dynamics. Neuron, 36 (6), 1211-1220.
  30. Prinz, W. (1987). Ideo-motor action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 47-76). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  31. Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C. H. (1999). Processing irrelevant location information: Practice and transfer effects in choice-reaction tasks. Memory and Cognition, 27 (1), 63-77.
  32. Puce, A., & Perrett, D. (2003). Electrophysiology and brain imaging of biological motion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 358 (1431), 435-445.
  33. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169-192.
  34. Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3 (2), 131-141.
  35. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2 (9), 661-670.
  36. Rumiati, R. I., Weiss, P. H., Tessari, A., Assmus, A., Zilles, K., Herzog, H., et al. (2005). Common and differential neural mechanisms supporting imitation of meaningful and meaningless actions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 (9), 1420-1431.
  37. Schaal, S. (1999). Is imitation learning the route to humanoid robots? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3 (6), 233-242.
  38. Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (2), 70-76.
  39. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51 (3), 300-304.
  40. Spears, R., Gordijn, E., Dijksterhuis, A., & Stapel, D. A. (2004). Reaction in Action: Intergroup Contrast in Automatic Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 605-616.
  41. Sturmer, B., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2000). Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: A study of imitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26 (6), 1746-1759.
  42. Tagliabue, M., Zorzi, M., Umilta, C., & Bassignani, F. (2000). The role of long-term-memory and short-term-memory links in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26 (2), 648-670.
  43. van Schie, H. T., Mars, R. B., Coles, M. G., & Bekkering, H. (2004). Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation. Nature Neuroscience, 7 (5), 549-554.
  44. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and longterm priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46 (4), 361-413.
  45. Williams, J. H. G., Whiten, A., Suddendorf, T., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Imitation, mirror neurons and autism. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25 (4), 287-295.
  46. World Medical Association declaration of Helsinki. Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects. (1997). Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 925-926.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Schie, H. T., van Waterschoot, B. M., & Bekkering, H.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
1493-1500
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
DOI
10.1037/a0011750
OpenAlex
W2096650375
Cited by
127
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 16
FWCI
8.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Union (IST-FP6-003747)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
action observation, imitation, joint action, Simon effect, perception-action coupling, virtual actors, direct matching
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Color Perception, Cues, Female, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Orientation, Problem Solving, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Hand Strength, Young Adult

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