Cited by 86Action Observation and SynchronizationChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

The Control of Automatic Imitation Based on Bottom–Up and Top–Down Cues to Animacy: Insights from Brain and Behavior

Open access
Klapper, André, Ramsey, Richard, Wigboldus, Daniël, Cross, Emily S.·2014·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Humans automatically imitate other people's actions during social interactions, building rapport and social closeness in the process. Although the behavioral consequences and neural correlates of imitation have been studied extensively, little is known about the neural mechanisms that control imitative tendencies. For example, the degree to which an agent is perceived as human-like influences automatic imitation, but it is not known how perception of animacy influences brain circuits that control imitation. In the current fMRI study, we examined how the perception and belief of animacy influence the control of automatic imitation. Using an imitation–inhibition paradigm that involves suppressing the tendency to imitate an observed action, we manipulated both bottom–up (visual input) and top–down (belief) cues to animacy. Results show divergent patterns of behavioral and neural responses. Behavioral analyses show that automatic imitation is equivalent when one or both cues to animacy are present but reduces when both are absent. By contrast, right TPJ showed sensitivity to the presence of both animacy cues. Thus, we demonstrate that right TPJ is biologically tuned to control imitative tendencies when the observed agent both looks like and is believed to be human. The results suggest that right TPJ may be involved in a specialized capacity to control automatic imitation of human agents, rather than a universal process of conflict management, which would be more consistent with generalist theories of imitative control. Evidence for specialized neural circuitry that “controls” imitation offers new insight into developmental disorders that involve atypical processing of social information, such as autism spectrum disorders.

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 · 10.1162/jocn_a_00651

Cites

56 of 56 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 rTPJ showed a higher response when an interaction partner was believed to be human and looked human compared to when these animacy cues were absent.

    “In addition, rTPJ showed a higher response when an interaction partner was believed to be human and looked human compared to when these animacy cues were absent (Klapper et al., 2014).”

    From The inhibition of automatic imitation: a meta-analysis and synthesis of fMRI studies (2018) · cites this paper as Klapper et al., 2014

    The Discussion says rTPJ was engaged when the observed agent both looked human and was believed to be human. The Interactions results specify that this was a greater response to incongruent than congruent actions in that condition, not a demonstrated higher overall response than when both animacy cues were absent. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Klapper, A., Ramsey, R., Wigboldus, D., & Cross, E. S.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • 1Radboud University Nijmegen
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2014-11-01
Volume
26
Issue
11
Pages
2503-2513
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2168299686
Cited by
85
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Bangor University
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (451-11-002)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K001884/1, ES/K001892/1)
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
automatic imitation, animacy perception, bottom-up cues, right temporoparietal junction, social cognition, autism spectrum disorder, conflict management, social proximity
MeSH terms
Brain, Cues, Female, Hand, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Interpersonal Relations, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motion Perception, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Psychophysics, Young Adult, Theory of Mind

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