Cited by 30Action Observation and SynchronizationMotor Control and AdaptationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Automatic imitation? Imitative compatibility affects responses at high perceptual load.

Open access
Catmur, Caroline·2016·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Abstract

Imitation involves matching the visual representation of another's action onto the observer's own motor program for that action. However, there has been some debate regarding the extent to which imitation is "automatic"-that is, occurs without attention. Participants performed a perceptual load task in which images of finger movements were presented as distractors. Responses to target letter stimuli were performed via finger movements that could be imitatively compatible (requiring the same finger movement) or incompatible with the distractor movements: In this common stimulus-response compatibility manipulation, the stimulus set comprises images of the response movements, producing an imitative compatibility effect. Attention to the distractor movements was manipulated by altering perceptual load through increasing the number of nontarget letter stimuli. If imitation requires attention, then at high perceptual load, imitative compatibility should not affect response times. In contrast, imitative compatibility influenced response times at high perceptual load, demonstrating that distractor movements were processed. However, the compatibility effect was reversed, suggesting that longer response times at high perceptual load tap into an inhibitory stage of distractor movement processing. A follow-up experiment manipulating temporal delay between targets and distractor movements supported this explanation. Further experiments confirmed that nonmovement distractor stimuli in the same configuration produced standard perceptual load effects and that results were not solely due to effector compatibility. These data suggest that imitation can occur without attention. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xhp0000166

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Catmur, C.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Catmur, Caroline
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Published
2016
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
530-539
ISSN
  • 0096-1523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1277
OpenAlex
W2213381091
Cited by
30
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K00140X/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
imitation, automaticity, perceptual load, stimulus-response compatibility, distractor processing, attention, finger movement, response inhibition
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Fingers, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Movement

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