Cited by 103Action Observation and SynchronizationChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Resisting motor mimicry: control of imitation involves processes central to social cognition in patients with frontal and temporo-parietal lesions

Open access
Spengler, Stephanie, von Cramon, D. Yves, Brass, Marcel·2010·Social Neuroscience

Abstract

Perception and execution of actions share a common representational and neural substrate and thereby facilitate unintentional motor mimicry. Controlling automatic imitation is therefore a crucial requirement of such a "shared representational" system. Based on previous findings from neuroimaging, we suggest that resisting motor mimicry recruits the same underlying computational mechanisms also involved in higher-level social cognitive processing, such as self - other differentiation and the representation of mental states. The aim of the present study was to investigate on a behavioral level whether there is a functional association between the inhibition of imitation and tasks, assessing the understanding of mental states and of different perspectives of self and other. In a sample of neuropsychological patients with frontal lesions, a correlation between the ability for mental state attribution and the control of imitation was found, with a similar effect in the control group. Temporo-parietal lesioned patients showed a highly significant correlation between imitative control and visual and cognitive perspective-taking. Even after controlling for executive functions, the results remained significant, indicating the functional specificity of this relationship. These findings provide new insight into the functional processes underlying the control of shared representations and suggest a novel link between embodied and higher-level social cognition.

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 · 10.1080/17470911003687905

Cites

80 of 80 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?

  • Weaker top-down control of imitation has been linked to poorer mentalizing and perspective taking, abilities that are impaired in schizophrenia.

    “Interestingly, reduced top-down modulation of imitation has also been associated with reduced mentalizing and perspective-taking ability, 36,40 abilities known to be impaired in schizophrenia.45”
  • In patients with lesions in the temporoparietal junction area, imitation inhibition deficits have been found to correlate with deficits in visual and cognitive perspective taking tasks.

    “Further, in patients with lesions in the temporoparietal junction area, imitation inhibition deficits have been found to correlate with deficits in visual and cognitive perspective taking tasks, further supporting the role of rTPJ in imitation control (Spengler et al., 2010).”

    From The inhibition of automatic imitation: a meta-analysis and synthesis of fMRI studies (2018) · cites this paper as Spengler et al., 2010

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: 2

  1. Barbas, H., Ghashghaei, H., Dombrowski, S. M., & Rempel-Clower, N. L. (1999). Medial prefrontal cortices are unified by common connections with superior temporal cortices and distinguished by input from memory-related areas in the rhesus monkey. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 410(3), 343-367.
  2. In T. Ramsayer, Grabianowski, S., Troche, S. (Ed.), 44. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie. Lengerich: Pabst.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spengler, S., von Cramon, D. Y., & Brass, M.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Max Planck Institute for Neurological Research
Corresponding author
Spengler, Stephanie
Venue
Social Neuroscience
Published
2010-04-15
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
401-416
ISSN
  • 1747-0919 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0927
OpenAlex
W2005199487
Cited by
103
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
FWCI
12.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Social Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
frontal lobe lesions, theory of mind, perspective taking, self-other distinction, shared representations, embodied cognition, social cognition, executive function
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Cognition, Female, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Social Behavior

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