Cited by 38Action Observation and SynchronizationTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesMotor Control and Adaptation

Mirroring multiple agents: Motor resonance during action observation is modulated by the number of agents

Open access
Cracco, Emiel, De Coster, Lize, Andres, Michael, Brass, Marcel·2016·Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Abstract

Although social situations regularly involve multiple persons acting together, research on the mirror neuron system has focused on situations in which a single agent is observed. Therefore, the goal of the current study was to explore the role of the mirror mechanism in situations involving multiple agents. Specifically, we used transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to investigate whether mirror activation is modulated by the number of observed agents. Based on group contagion research, we hypothesized that multiple agents would provide a stronger trigger to the motor system and would therefore produce a stronger mirror response than a single agent. Participants observed movements performed by a single hand or by two hands while TMS was applied to the primary motor cortex. The results confirmed that activation in the motor system was stronger for two hands. This suggests that input to the motor system increases as the number of agents grows. Relating back to group contagion, our study suggests that groups may be more contagious simply because their actions resonate louder. Given that the mirror mechanism has been linked to a variety of social skills, our findings additionally have important implications for the understanding of social interaction at the group level.

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 · 10.1093/scan/nsw059

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • Seeing two hands performing the same action produces stronger corticospinal excitability and stronger imitation than seeing one hand performing a single action.

    “research looking at automatic imitation of multiple agents has shown that seeing two hands performing the same action elicits stronger corticospinal excitability (Cracco, De Coster, Andres, & Brass, 2016) and therefore stronger imitation (Cracco & Brass, 2018a;Cracco, De Coster, Andres, & Brass, 2015) than seeing one hand performing a single action.”

    From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as Cracco, De Coster, Andres, & Brass, 2016

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: 33

  1. Aglioti, S.M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., Urgesi, C. (2008). Action an- ticipation and motor resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11(9), 1109-16.
  2. Avenanti, A., Annella, L., Candidi, M., Urgesi, C., Aglioti, S.M. (2013). Compensatory plasticity in the action observation net- work: virtual lesions of STS enhance anticipatory simulation of seen actions. Cereb Cortex, 23(3),570-80.
  3. Avenanti, A., Bolognini, N., Maravita, A., Aglioti, S.M. (2007). Somatic and motor components of action simulation. Current Biology, 17(24), 2129-35.
  4. Bien, N., Roebroeck, A., Goebel, R., Sack, A.T. (2009). The brain's Intention to Imitate: The Neurobiology of Intentional versus Automatic Imitation. Cerebral Cortex, 19(10), 2338-51.
  5. Borgomaneri, S., Gazzola, V., Avenanti, A. (2012). Motor mapping of implied actions during perception of emotional body lan- guage. Brain Stimulation, 5(2), 70-6.
  6. Carr, L., Iacoboni, M., Dubeau, M.C., Mazziotta, J.C., Lenzi, G.L. (2003). Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: a relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(9), 5497-502.
  7. Catmur, C., Mars, R.B., Rushworth, M.F., Heyes, C. (2011). Making mirrors: premotor cortex stimulation enhances mirror and counter-mirror motor facilitation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2352-62.
  8. Catmur, C., Walsh, V., Heyes, C. (2009). Associative sequence learning: the role of experience in the development of imita- tion and the mirror system. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 364(1528), 2369-80.
  9. Cattaneo, L., Caruana, F., Jezzini, A., Rizzolatti, G. (2009). Representation of goal and movements without overt motor behavior in the human motor cortex: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(36), 11134-8.
  10. Cattaneo, L., Fabbri-Destro, M., Boria, S., et al., (2007). Impairment of actions chains in autism and its possible role in intention understanding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(45), 17825-30.
  11. Enticott, P.G., Arnold, S.L., Fitzgibbon, B.M., Hoy, K.E., Susilo, D.A., Fitzgerald, P.B. (2012). Transcranial direct current stimu- lation (tDCS) of the inferior frontal gyrus disrupts interper- sonal motor resonance. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), 1628-31.
  12. Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., Olivier, E. (2005). Human motor cortex excitability during the perception of others' action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15(2), 213-8.
  13. Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G., Rizzolatti, G. (1995). Motor facili- tation during action observation: A magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73, 2608-11.
  14. Freedman, J.L., Birsky, J. (1980). Environmental determinants of behavioral contagion: Density and number. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1(2), 155-61.
  15. Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action rec- ognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(2), 593-609.
  16. Gazzola, V., Aziz-Zadeh, L., Keysers, C. (2006). Empathy and the somatotopic auditory mirror system in humans. Current Biology, 16(18), 1824-9.
  17. Herrmann, P.A., Legare, C.H., Harris, P.L., Whitehouse, H. (2013). Stick to the script: The effect of witnessing multiple actors on children's imitation. Cognition, 129(3), 536-43.
  18. Klein, R.M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 138-47.
  19. Knowles, E.S., Bassett, R.L. (1976). Groups and crowds as social entities: Effects of activity, size, and member similarity on nonmembers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 837-45.
  20. Maeda, F., Kleiner-Fisman, G., Pascual-Leone, A. (2002). Motor fa- cilitation while observing hand actions: Specificity of the effect and role of observer's orientation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87(3), 1329-35.
  21. Mann, L. (1977). The effect of stimulus queues on queue-joining behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(6), 437-42.
  22. Mattiassi, A.D., Mele, S., Ticini, L.F., Urgesi, C. (2014). Conscious and unconscious representations of observed actions in the human motor system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(9), 2028-41.
  23. Molenberghs, P., Cunnington, R., Mattingley, J.B. (2012). Brain re- gions with mirror properties: a meta-analysis of 125 human fMRI studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(1), 341-9.
  24. Morey, R.D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: a correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(2), 61-4.
  25. Raafat, R.M., Chater, N., Frith, C. (2009). Herding in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 420-8.
  26. Rizzolatti, G., Fabbri-Destro, M. (2008). The mirror system and its role in social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 179-84.
  27. Rizzolatti, G., Sinigaglia, C. (2010). The functional role of the pari- eto-frontal mirror circuit: Interpretations and misinterpret- ations. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(4), 264-74.
  28. Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P.M., et al., (2009). Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of trans- cranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(12), 2008-39.
  29. Samuel, A.G., Kat, D. (2003). Inhibition of return: a graphical meta-analysis of its time course and an empirical test of its temporal and spatial properties. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(4), 897-906.
  30. Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Tscope: a C library for programming cognitive experi- ments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 280-6.
  31. Tian, Y., Klein, R.M., Satel, J., Xu, P., Yao, D. (2011). Electrophysiological explorations of the cause and effect of in- hibition of return in a cue-target paradigm. Brain Topography, 24(2), 164-82.
  32. Tian, Y., Yao, D. (2008). A study on the neural mechanism of in- hibition of return by the event-related potential in the Go/ Nogo task. Biological Psychology, 79(2), 171-8.
  33. Tidoni, E., Borgomaneri, S., di Pellegrino, G., Avenanti, A. (2013). Action simulation plays a critical role in deceptive action rec- ognition. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(2), 611-23.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cracco, E., De Coster, L., Andres, M., & Brass, M.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, Ghent, 9000, Belgium
Venue
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Published
2016-04-25
Volume
11
Issue
9
Pages
1422-1427
ISSN
  • 1749-5016 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-5024
OpenAlex
W2343268769
Cited by
38
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO14/ASP/050)
  • Vlaamse regering
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
action observation, mirror neuron system, motor resonance, multiple agents, primary motor cortex, transcranial magnetic stimulation, social interaction
MeSH terms
Electromyography, Hand, Humans, Male, Motion Perception, Motor Cortex, Movement, Photic Stimulation, Social Environment, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Observation, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Young Adult, Mirror Neurons

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