CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Action Observation and SynchronizationChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Functional Specificity and Sex Differences in the Neural Circuits Supporting the Inhibition of Automatic Imitation

Open access
Darda, Kohinoor M., Butler, Emily E., Ramsey, Richard·2018·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
DOI 10.1162/jocn_a_01261
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Humans show an involuntary tendency to copy other people's actions. Although automatic imitation builds rapport and affiliation between individuals, we do not copy actions indiscriminately. Instead, copying behaviors are guided by a selection mechanism, which inhibits some actions and prioritizes others. To date, the neural underpinnings of the inhibition of automatic imitation and differences between the sexes in imitation control are not well understood. Previous studies involved small sample sizes and low statistical power, which produced mixed findings regarding the involvement of domain-general and domain-specific neural architectures. Here, we used data from Experiment 1 ( N = 28) to perform a power analysis to determine the sample size required for Experiment 2 ( N = 50; 80% power). Using independent functional localizers and an analysis pipeline that bolsters sensitivity, during imitation control we show clear engagement of the multiple-demand network (domain-general), but no sensitivity in the theory-of-mind network (domain-specific). Weaker effects were observed with regard to sex differences, suggesting that there are more similarities than differences between the sexes in terms of the neural systems engaged during imitation control. In summary, neurocognitive models of imitation require revision to reflect that the inhibition of imitation relies to a greater extent on a domain-general selection system rather than a domain-specific system that supports social cognition.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Across two fMRI experiments with higher power and functional localizers, inhibition of automatic imitation engaged the domain-general multiple-demand (MD) network but not the theory-of-mind (ToM) network. Behavioral sex differences appeared for spatial but not imitative compatibility, while neural sex differences in MD/ToM networks were not robust.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 2, all 16 MD fROIs showed spatial compatibility effects surviving FDR correction (p < .05); none of the 16 MD fROIs showed imitative compatibility surviving FDR correction, though five (bilateral IPL, bilateral IPS, right IFG) did at uncorrected p < .05. No ToM fROIs showed spatial or imitative compatibility even uncorrected. Mean percent signal change: MD spatial 0.70 (SD = 1.66, d = 0.42), MD imitative 0.54 (SD = 2.06, d = 0.26); ToM spatial −0.16 (SD = 1.88, d = −0.08), ToM imitative −0.32 (SD = 2.02, d = −0.16).
  • Behavior: Experiment 1 general compatibility effect mean = 80.02 ms (SE = 8.19), t(27) = 9.77, p ≤ .001, dz = 1.85; no sex difference, t(26) = 1.114, p = .138, d = 0.42. Experiment 2 spatial compatibility mean = 41.94 ms (SE = 2.87), t(54) = 14.618, p ≤ .001, dz = 1.97, with female > male (50.98 vs. 33.20 ms; t(53) = −3.38, p < .001, d = 0.91); imitative compatibility mean = 15.37 ms (SE = 2.86), t(54) = 5.37, p < .001, dz = 0.72, with no sex difference, t(53) = 0.09, p = .465, d = 0.02.
  • Neural sex differences: no sex differences in ToM or MD networks in either experiment; Experiment 1 Sex × Compatibility clusters in left SPL extending into postcentral gyrus and cerebellum did not overlap MD/ToM networks; Experiment 2 no fROI sex difference survived correction (right SPL spatial p = .062).
  • Power: Experiment 1 N = 28 was used to power Experiment 2; 50 participants provided 80% power to detect the MD average effect (d = 0.4, mean signal change = 0.23, SD = 0.58). Experiment 2 final fMRI sample was 50 (24 female) after exclusions.

Methods

  • Two fMRI experiments. Experiment 1: N = 28 (M age = 23.96, SD = 5.52; 14 women), imitation inhibition task based on Brass et al. (2000), whole-brain group analysis; used for power analysis. Experiment 2: recruited 55 (M age = 22.04, SD = 3.70; 27 women), final fMRI sample 50 (M age = 22.26, SD = 3.71; 24 female); modified imitation task dissociating spatial and imitative compatibility, plus independent MD (verbal working memory hard > easy) and ToM (false belief > false photograph) localizers.
  • Behavioral RT analyses used one-sample t tests and one-tailed independent-samples t tests for sex. fMRI data were preprocessed in SPM-8 on a 3-T Philips scanner; analyses included group-level whole-brain contrasts and group-constrained subject-specific fROI analyses using top 10% of voxels within MD/ToM parcels, with FDR correction (p < .05) for fROIs.

Limitations

  • Stated: the primary limitation is a relatively simple univariate model of brain organization; only MD and ToM networks were identified, so regions outside these networks may contribute to imitation inhibition or mediate sex differences, and whole-brain analyses only tested univariate engagement outside fROIs.
  • Stated: the fROI approach depends on localizer assumptions; different ToM localizers may engage partly nonoverlapping aspects of the ToM network, so conclusions are limited to the localizer paradigms used.
  • Stated/evident: task order in Experiment 2 could have influenced results (ToM localizer always last; MD localizer interspersed), though the authors note Experiment 1 produced the same results when the MD task was not performed before imitation. Also stated/evident: sex-difference analyses were underpowered relative to compatibility effects, so the null neural sex differences should be interpreted cautiously.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn_a_01261

Cites

139 of 139 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

37 of 85 cited sources checked · 30 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    To measure imitation interference independent of spatial compatibility effects, spatial and imitative processes need to be dissociated.

    “To measure imitation interference independent of spatial compatibility effects, spatial and imitative processes need to be dissociated (Gowen, Bolton, & Poliakoff, 2016;Marsh et al., 2016;Boyer, Longo, & Bertenthal, 2012;Cooper, Catmur, & Heyes, 2012;Catmur & Heyes, 2011;Wiggett, Hudson, Tipper, & Downing, 2011;Bertenthal, Longo, & Kosobud, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Gowen, Bolton, & Poliakoff, 2016 source
    • cites Marsh et al., 2016 source
    • cites Boyer, Longo, & Bertenthal, 2012 source
  • Premisecitation

    A number of studies showed engagement of regions associated with the MD network, including dorsal frontoparietal cortex, supplementary motor area, and anterior insula, during imitation control.

    “In addition, a number of studies showed engagement of regions associated with the MD network, including dorsal frontoparietal cortex, supplementary motor area (SMA) and anterior insula (Marsh, Bird, & Catmur, 2016;Cross & Iacoboni, 2013;Mengotti, Corradi-Dell'Acqua, & Rumiati, 2012;Crescentini, Mengotti, Grecucci, & Rumiati, 2011;Bien, Roebroeck, Goebel, & Sack, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Marsh, Bird, & Catmur, 2016 source

      The “Effects of imitative compatibility” section (page not provided) reports activation in the inferior parietal lobule and a cluster extending to dorsal premotor cortex during imitatively incompatible trials. It does not report supplementary motor area or anterior insula activation, and the “fMRI results” section distinguishes the imitation-control network from regions recruited by spatial compatibility alone. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Cross & Iacoboni, 2013 source

      The Discussion reports anterior insula/frontal operculum involvement in imitation control, consistent with several previous studies. The paper does not identify that activity as part of an MD network or report supplementary motor area engagement in imitation control; it describes a frontoparietal network in the Results in relation to action observation and imitation cues, not as the claimed dorsal frontoparietal imitation-control network. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Mengotti, Corradi-Dell'Acqua, & Rumiati, 2012 source
  • Premisecitation

    A recent study using an RT measure of imitation inhibition showed that female individuals showed a greater level of interference than male individuals.

    “A recent study that used an RT measure of imitation inhibition (Brass et al., 2000) showed that female individuals showed a greater level of interference than male individuals (Butler et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Butler et al., 2015 source
  • Premisecitation

    Studies of sex differences in social cognition have mainly focused on emotional expression perception and mental state reasoning with little emphasis placed on imitation.

    “Furthermore, studies of sex differences in social cognition have mainly focused on emotional expression perception and mental state reasoning with little emphasis placed on imitation (Krach et al., 2009;Russell, Tchanturia, Rahman, & Schmidt, 2007;Rahman, Wilson, & Abrahams, 2004;Campbell et al., 2002;Thayer & Johnsen, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Krach et al., 2009 source

      The Background (page unavailable) identifies this as a study of sex differences in mentalizing, supporting its use as an example of research on mental-state reasoning. It does not establish that studies of sex differences in social cognition have mainly focused on emotional-expression perception and mental-state reasoning, or that imitation has received little emphasis. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Russell, Tchanturia, Rahman, & Schmidt, 2007 source
    • cites Rahman, Wilson, & Abrahams, 2004 source
  • Premisecitation

    Evidence to date suggests that there is no link between imitation, as measured by RTs, and empathy.

    “However, even though empathy has been associated with different types of imitation paradigms (Müller, Leeuwen, Baaren, Bekkering, & Dijksterhuis, 2013;Sonnby-Borgström, Jönsson, & Svensson, 2003;Sonnby-Borgström, 2002;Chartrand & Bargh, 1999), the evidence to date suggests that there is no link between imitation, as measured by RTs, and empathy (Genschow et al., 2017;Butler et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Genschow et al., 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Butler et al., 2015 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 37
  • May combine two claims. 28
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Only a limited number of studies have investigated sex differences in social cognition, and the results are often mixed, do not replicate, or are specific to very select contexts or samples.

    “Although it has been suggested that women excel across a range of social processes compared with men (Baron-Cohen, 2002), only a limited number of studies have investigated sex differences in social cognition, and the results are often mixed, do not replicate, or are specific to very select contexts or samples (Hyde, 2014;Miller & Halpern, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hyde, 2014 source

      The Summary and Future Directions section (page unavailable) reports that context can create or erase gender differences in helping behavior, supporting the claim's context-dependent aspect for social behavior. It does not establish that few studies have examined sex differences in social cognition or that findings in that domain are mixed or fail to replicate; the passages on context concern other domains. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Miller & Halpern, 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    In the study by Butler and colleagues (2015), it is unclear whether sex modulates the tendency to automatically imitate or the tendency to automatically respond in the same spatial location to the observed action.

    “In addition, in the study by Butler and colleagues (2015), it is unclear whether sex modulates the tendency to automatically imitate or the tendency to automatically respond in the same spatial location to the observed action.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Butler et al., 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    More recent work showed a greater interference effect for female individuals compared with male individuals, as well as greater error rates for predominantly female samples than male samples.

    “More recent work also showed a greater interference effect for female individuals compared with male individuals (Genschow et al., 2017), as well as greater error rates for predominantly female samples than male samples (Cracco et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Genschow et al., 2017 source

      The Results section on demographics reports a trend toward a greater interference effect in women than men, but explicitly says the difference was not statistically significant (p = .094). The significant gender differences were for congruency and facilitation effects, so the unqualified interference claim overstates the finding. The error-rate clause cites Cracco et al. (2018), not this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Cracco et al., 2018 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Domain-general inhibitory systems operate across multiple tasks and have been identified in dorsal frontoparietal cortices.

    “Domaingeneral inhibitory systems, which operate across multiple tasks, have been identified in dorsal frontoparietal cortices (Aron, Robbins, & Poldrack, 2014;Hazeltine, Poldrack, & Gabrieli, 2007;Nee, Wager, & Jonides, 2007;Wager et al., 2005;Bunge, Hazeltine, Scanlon, Rosen, & Gabrieli, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Aron, Robbins, & Poldrack, 2014 source
    • cites Hazeltine, Poldrack, & Gabrieli, 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Nee, Wager, & Jonides, 2007 source

      The Results report DLPFC and posterior parietal clusters in an analysis combining multiple interference-resolution tasks. But the Conclusions say this network *may* underlie conflict resolution, and the paper proposes different mechanisms for different processing stages. It does not establish a domain-general inhibitory system as a settled finding. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Imitation is modulated by stable individual differences, such as empathy and sex.

    “It has been argued that imitation is modulated by stable individual differences, such as empathy (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013) and sex (Butler et al., 2015;Sonnby-Borgström et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chartrand & Lakin, 2013 source
    • cites Butler et al., 2015 source
    • cites Sonnby-Borgström et al., 2008 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A key neural circuit for social cognition also regulates imitative tendencies.

    “These results led to theorizing that a key neural circuit for social cognition also regulates imitative tendencies (Brass et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brass et al., 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    In Experiment 2, a modified version of the imitation inhibition paradigm was used to avoid spatial compatibility confounds and to allow an independent measure of spatial and imitative compatibility.

    “Third, to avoid spatial compatibility confounds, in Experiment 2, we used a modified version of the imitation inhibition paradigm that allowed for an independent measure of spatial and imitative compatibility (Catmur & Heyes, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Catmur & Heyes, 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    In Experiment 2, independent localizers were used to identify key functional circuits (MD and ToM networks), and analyses were performed in single subjects to precisely quantify the consistency of network engagement across individuals.

    “In Experiment 2, to increase sensitivity and functional resolution, we used independent localizers to identify key functional circuits (i.e., MD and ToM networks), and analyses were performed in single subjects to precisely quantify the consistency of network engagement across individuals (Nieto-Castañón & Fedorenko, 2012;Kanwisher, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nieto-Castañón & Fedorenko, 2012 source
    • cites Kanwisher, 2010 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    An across-run cross-validation approach ensures that data used for defining fROIs were independent of data used for estimating response.

    “For these localizer analyses, an across-run cross-validation approach was used (Nieto-Castañón & Fedorenko, 2012) to ensure that data used for defining fROIs were independent of data used for estimating response (Kriegeskorte, Simmons, Bellgowan, & Baker, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nieto-Castañón & Fedorenko, 2012 source
    • cites Kriegeskorte, Simmons, Bellgowan, & Baker, 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Using the top 10% of voxels rather than a fixed threshold ensures a constant size of each fROI across individuals.

    “Using the top 10% of voxels, rather than a fixed threshold (e.g., all voxels with p < .001),ensures a constant size of each fROI across individuals (Blank, Kanwisher, & Fedorenko, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Blank, Kanwisher, & Fedorenko, 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Normalizing to a common space instead of the individual's native anatomical space allows comparisons with previous studies and is preferred when definition of fROIs is based on group-constrained functional data.

    “Normalizing to a common space instead of the individual's native anatomical space allows for comparisons with previous studies (relying on the common space) and is preferred when definition of fROIs is based on groupconstrained functional data (Nieto-Castañón & Fedorenko, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nieto-Castañón & Fedorenko, 2012 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The false belief > false photograph contrast has been shown in prior work to robustly activate regions involved in mentalizing.

    “The false belief > false photograph contrast has been shown in prior work to robustly activate regions involved in mentalizing (Dufour et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dufour et al., 2013 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Group-level analyses may underestimate functional specificity, whereas fROI analyses can show increased sensitivity.

    “Consequently, group-level analyses may underestimate functional specificity, whereas fROI analyses can show increased sensitivity (Nieto-Castañón & Fedorenko, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nieto-Castañón & Fedorenko, 2012 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    In Experiment 2, an imitative compatibility effect was calculated independent of spatial compatibility.

    “The second change that we made was to calculate an imitative compatibility effect independent of spatial compatibility (Catmur & Heyes, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Catmur & Heyes, 2011 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Different ToM localizers may engage partly nonoverlapping aspects of the ToM network.

    “For example, different ToM localizers may engage partly nonoverlapping aspects of the ToM network (Schaafsma, Pfaff, Spunt, & Adolphs, 2015;Spunt & Adolphs, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Schaafsma, Pfaff, Spunt, & Adolphs, 2015 source
    • cites Spunt & Adolphs, 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Using the ToM network SVC, no clusters survived correction for multiple comparison, and only rTPJ showed a compatibility effect at more lenient threshold (p < .001, uncorrected).

    “In contrast, using the ToM network SVC, no clusters survived correction for multiple comparison, and only rTPJ showed a compatibility effect at more lenient threshold ( p < .001,uncorrected; see Supplementary Tables S2.1 and S2.2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No clusters emerged following an SVC analysis using the MD and ToM network masks for the Sex × Compatibility interaction, demonstrating that the clusters emerging from the Sex × Compatibility interaction do not overlap with the MD or ToM networks.

    “No clusters emerged following an SVC analysis using the MD and ToM network masks, which demonstrate that the clusters emerging from the Sex × Compatibility interaction do not overlap with the MD or ToM networks (see Supplementary Tables S2.1 and S2.2; Figure 4Cii and Dii).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Analyses using a fixed threshold (p < .001, uncorrected) found the same pattern of results as the top 10% approach.

    “We also ran the analyses using a fixed threshold ( p < .001,uncorrected) and found the same pattern of results (see Supplementary Tables S1.1 and S1.2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The final sample in Experiment 2 consisted of 50 participants (M age = 22.26, SD age = 3.71; 24 female).

    “Thus, the final sample consisted of 50 participants (M age = 22.26, SD age = 3.71; 24 female).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The hand stimulus used in Experiment 2 for the imitation inhibition task was perceived as neutral by most participants (mean rating = 5.20, SD rating = 2.04).

    “The hand stimulus used in Experiment 2 for the imitation inhibition task was perceived as”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No significant differences were found between male and female individuals in percent signal change values in any of the MD network fROIs (ts < 1.6, ps > .1), except right SPL which approached significance (p = .062).

    “No significant differences were found between male and female individuals in percent signal change values in any of the fROIs (ts < 1.6, ps > .1),except right SPL which approached significance ( p = .062;Figure 7A).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The mean percent signal change across the ToM network for spatial compatibility was -0.16, SD = 1.88, Cohen's d = -0.08.

    “The mean percent signal change across the ToM network for spatial compatibility was -0.16, SD = 1.88,Cohen's d = -0.08,and the mean percent signal change across the ToM network for imitative compatibility was -0.32, SD = 2.02, Cohen's d = -0.16.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The mean percent signal change across the ToM network for imitative compatibility was -0.32, SD = 2.02, Cohen's d = -0.16.

    “The mean percent signal change across the ToM network for spatial compatibility was -0.16, SD = 1.88,Cohen's d = -0.08,and the mean percent signal change across the ToM network for imitative compatibility was -0.32, SD = 2.02, Cohen's d = -0.16.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All 16 fROIs of the MD network showed a spatial compatibility effect (ts > 1.8, ps < .04), which survived FDR correction (p < .05).

    “All 16 fROIs of the MD network showed a spatial compatibility effect (ts > 1.8, ps < .04; Figure 6A, Table 3), which survived correction for multiple comparisons ( p < .05,FDR-corrected).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Even though our whole-brain analyses showed no consistent effects outside our fROIs, this only shows that there was no univariate engagement of extended brain regions.

    “Even though our whole-brain analyses showed no consistent effects outside our fROIs, this only shows that there was no univariate engagement of extended brain regions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In the imitation inhibition task (Experiment 1), the Sex × Compatibility interaction (female compatibility effect > male compatibility effect) produced clusters in the left superior parietal cortex extending into the postcentral gyrus.

    “Clusters emerged in the left superior parietal cortex extending into the postcentral gyrus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Regions outside our ROIs mediated the sex difference in Experiment 1, but these regions were not consistently engaged differently for male and female individuals in Experiment 2.

    “Furthermore, even though regions outside our ROIs mediated the sex difference in Experiment 1, these regions were not consistently engaged differently for male and female individuals in Experiment 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There does seem to be a trend for greater engagement in the MD network for female individuals compared with male individuals for both spatial and imitative effects, but this does not survive our statistical thresholding.

    “This being said, there does seem to be a trend for greater engagement in the MD network for female individuals compared with male individuals for both spatial and imitative effects, but this does not survive our statistical thresholding (Figure 7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The dorsal frontoparietal brain circuit has been labeled the multiple demand (MD) network because of its engagement in a diversity of mental operations.

    “This brain circuit has been labeled the multiple demand (MD) network because of its engagement in a diversity of mental operations (Duncan, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Duncan, 2010 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Imitation is unlikely to rely on a single cognitive or brain system.

    “Imitation, however, is unlikely to rely on a single cognitive or brain system (Southgate & Hamilton, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Southgate & Hamilton, 2008 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Automatic imitation is beneficial in social situations because it develops affiliative attitudes, better cooperation, and feelings of closeness between interacting partners.

    “Automatic imitation is thought to be beneficial in social situations because it develops affiliative attitudes, better cooperation, and feelings of closeness between interacting partners (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chartrand & Lakin, 2013 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The extent to which imitation inhibition relies on domain-specific and domain-general architectures remains unclear.

    “Therefore, the extent to which imitation inhibition relies on domain-specific and domain-general architectures remains unclear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Even though the sex difference remains when spatial compatibility is reduced, this does not rule out the possibility of orthogonal spatial compatibility.

    “Even though this shows that the sex difference remains when spatial compatibility is reduced, it does not rule out the possibility of orthogonal spatial compatibility ( Weeks & Proctor, 1990).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Weeks & Proctor, 1990 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The RT measure of imitation involves making finger movements while simultaneously watching compatible or incompatible finger movements.

    “The RT measure of imitation involves making finger movements while simultaneously watching compatible or incompatible finger movements (Brass, Bekkering, Wohlschlager, & Prinz, 2000;Stürmer et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brass, Bekkering, Wohlschlager, & Prinz, 2000 source
    • cites Stürmer et al., 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Using a functional ROI approach enables investigation of how functionally defined brain circuits, such as the MD and ToM networks, operate during the control of imitation.

    “Using a fROI approach enables investigation of how functionally defined brain circuits, such as the MD and ToM networks, operate during the control of imitation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies investigating the neural mechanisms of imitation control have been limited by small sample sizes and low statistical power, which has produced mixed findings.

    “Previous studies involved small sample sizes and low statistical power, which produced mixed findings regarding the involvement of domain-general and domain-specific neural architectures.”
    • Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
      “To date, studies investigating the neural mechanisms of imitation control have been limited by small sample sizes and low statistical power, which has produced mixed findings (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Table 1

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The difference between RTs in compatible and incompatible conditions (the general compatibility effect) has been argued to index imitative control, as greater cognitive resources are required to inhibit movements incompatible to one's own responses.

    “The dif-ference between RTs in these two conditions (i.e., the general compatibility effect) has been argued to index imitative control, as greater cognitive resources are required to inhibit movements that are incompatible to one's own responses (Heyes, 2011;Brass & Heyes, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Heyes, 2011 source
    • cites Brass & Heyes, 2005 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Correction for multiple comparisons was performed at the cluster level with family-wise error correction p < .05, which restricts the likelihood of false positives.

    “Correction for multiple comparisons was performed at the cluster level (Friston, Worsley, Frackowiak, Mazziotta, & Evans, 1994), with clusters that survive correction for multiple corrections using a family-wise error correction ( p < .05;shown in bold font in Table 2A and B;see Results).This restricts the likelihood of false positives (Eklund et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Friston, Worsley, Frackowiak, Mazziotta, & Evans, 1994 source
    • cites Eklund et al., 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The sample size for Experiment 2 was determined by a power analysis based on Experiment 1 data.

    “The sample size was determined by a power analysis based on Experiment 1 data (see Results).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In Experiment 1, the order of tasks was counterbalanced across participants such that 14 participants did the imitation task first and 14 did the flanker task first.

    “The order of the tasks was counterbalanced across participants such that, of the 28 participants, 14 participants did the imitation task first, and 14 participants did the flanker task first, with the order of the other tasks remaining the same.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The sex of the hand stimulus was an important consideration to minimize the possibility of an own-sex bias while exploring sex differences in imitation inhibition.

    “The sex of the hand was an important consideration to minimize the possibility of an own-sex bias while exploring sex differences in imitation inhibition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The four trial types were pseudorandomized such that each trial type was preceded by each other trial type and by itself an equal number of times.

    “To separately model the influence of individual events in an eventrelated design, the four trial types were pseudorandomized, such that each trial type was preceded by each other trial type and by itself an equal number of times ( Wager & Nichols, 2003;Josephs & Henson, 1999).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Wager & Nichols, 2003 source
    • cites Josephs & Henson, 1999 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    From these 50 participants, two sessions of the imitation task were also excluded for one participant due to excessive head motion and one participant's data for one session of the imitation task could not be used because the data file was corrupted.

    “From these 50 participants, two sessions of the imitation task were also excluded for one participant due to excessive head motion and one participant's data for one session of the imitation task could not be used because the data file was corrupted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Pilot work asked observers to evaluate a range of hand stimuli in terms of masculinity and femininity, and the most sex-neutral stimulus was selected.

    “As such, we conducted pilot work that asked observers to evaluate a range of hand stimuli in terms of masculinity and femininity, and we selected the most sex-neutral stimulus (see Supplementary Information, Development of Stimuli).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Experiment 2 had more than twice the number of trials per condition than Experiment 1.

    “Experiment 2, therefore, had more than twice the number of trials per condition than Experiment 1.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Given inconsistent findings in prior studies with relatively small sample sizes, the multiexperiment approach made sure that the key experiment had over 80% power to detect expected effect sizes.

    “Given the inconsistent findings in prior studies, which had relatively small sample sizes, this multiexperiment approach made sure that our key experiment had over 80% power to detect expected effect sizes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Experiment 1 used a group-level whole-brain analysis, which provided the basis for power analyses that set up Experiment 2 as the critical experiment with high statistical power (80%).

    “Experiment 1 used a group-level whole-brain analysis, which provided the basis for power analyses that set up Experiment 2 as the critical experiment with high statistical power (80%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Using one sex-neutral hand stimulus provided greater experimental control but may have harmed the ability to study or elicit sex differences.

    “Although using one sex-neutral hand stimulus provided greater experimental control, it may have harmed our ability to study or elicit sex differences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The ToM task was always presented at the end to reduce the likelihood that belief reasoning during the ToM task would influence performance in the imitation task.

    “The ToM task was always presented at the end to reduce the likelihood that belief reasoning during the ToM task would influence performance in the imitation task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All participants in Experiment 1 had >80% accuracy; hence, all were included in the analysis.

    “All participants had >80% accuracy; hence, all were included in the analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Using independent functional localizers allows direct testing of hypotheses regarding the role of functionally defined neural circuits (MD and ToM networks) and minimizes reliance on reverse inference.

    “By doing so, we can directly test hypotheses regarding the role of functionally defined neural circuits (i.e., MD and ToM networks) and therefore minimize the reliance on reverse inference to infer cognitive function based on anatomical localization (Poldrack, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Poldrack, 2006 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Runs on which participants had less than 80% accuracy (two runs of one participant) were removed.

    “To ensure participants were engaging correctly with the task, runs on which participants had less than 80% accuracy (two runs of one participant) were removed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Five participants were excluded from the fMRI analyses in Experiment 2 due to lower than 80% accuracy in two runs of the imitation task and the MD network localizer task (n = 1) and excessive head motion (n = 4; displacement > 4 mm).

    “Five participants were excluded from the fMRI analyses due to lower than 80% accuracy in two runs of the imitation task and the MD network localizer task (n = 1) and excessive head motion (n = 4; displacement > 4 mm) in all runs of the imitation task and/or all runs of either of the localizer tasks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Taken together, this pattern of results suggests that response inhibition relating to spatial conflict differs between the sexes, rather than a process that is tied to the control of imitation.

    “Taken together, this pattern of results suggests that response inhibition relating to spatial conflict differs between the sexes, rather than a process that is tied to the control of imitation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    During the inhibition of imitation, the consistency of mPFC and rTPJ engagement across individuals is relatively low, whereas the consistency of MD network engagement across individuals is relatively high.

    “Taken together with prior findings (Table 1), we suggest that, during the inhibition of imitation, the consistency of mPFC and rTPJ engagement across individuals is relatively low, whereas the consistency of MD network engagement across individuals is relatively high.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
55 of 55

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No neuroscience research has investigated how individual differences such as sex modulate imitation control.

    “Furthermore, no neuroscience research has investigated how individual differences such as sex modulate imitation control, even though behavioral research has shown that imitative tendencies vary as a function of sex (Butler, Ward, & Ramsey, 2015;Sonnby-Borgström, Jönsson, & Svensson, 2008;Dimberg & Lundquist, 1990).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    This is the first study to use independent functional localizers to identify MD and ToM networks in single subjects and directly test the involvement of these networks in imitation control.

    “First, this is the first study to use independent functional localizers to identify MD and ToM networks in single subjects and directly test the involvement of these networks in imitation control.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    mPFC and rTPJ are at least partly specialized for social cognition.

    “An important point to note, however, is that any conclusions made regarding possible domain specificity of mPFC and rTPJ are based on the assumption that mPFC and rTPJ are at least partly specialized for social cognition (Brass et al., 2009).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The validity of the fROI approach is based on assumptions about the functional processes that are engaged by the localizers used to identify fROIs.

    “The validity of the fROI approach is based on assumptions about the functional processes that are engaged by the localizers used to identify fROIs.”
4 of 4

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 tasks used in the studies included in the meta-analysis are conceptually, visually and cognitively similar to each other, with only minor differences across all studies.

    “However, the tasks are all conceptually, visually and cognitively similar to each other with only minor differences across all studies.”

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

    The Design and Procedure section (page unavailable) says the automatic imitation task in Experiment 2 was similar to that in Experiment 1, with two changes, including a different hand stimulus. That supports similarity between this paper’s two experiments, but it does not establish that tasks across all studies in the citing document’s meta-analysis were conceptually, visually and cognitively similar, with only minor differences. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(26) = 1.114reported p = .138 · recomputed p = .275

    “t(26) = 1.114, p = .138”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(53) = -3.38reported p < .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “t(53) = -3.38,p < .001”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(54) = 5.37reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(54) = 5.37, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(53) = 0.09reported p = .465 · recomputed p = .929

    “t(53) = 0.09, p = .465”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Sample size does not match the sex counts in Table 1

    Minor

    The Cross et al. (2013) row lists 5 male and 15 female participants, totaling 20 rather than the reported sample of 25.

    Reported 25 · recomputed 20

  • Imitative effects are described as meeting a stricter threshold than Table 3 reports

    Minor

    The Figure 6 caption says five MD regions showed imitative effects at an uncorrected threshold of p < .001. Table 3 reports uncorrected p values from .007 to .028 for those regions; none meets .001.

  • Identical spatial t statistics have different p values

    Minor

    Table 3 gives t = 2.30 for both R_SPL and R_SMA in the same spatial-compatibility analysis, but reports p = .013 for one and p = .022 for the other.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Darda, K. M., Butler, E. E., & Ramsey, R.
Affiliations
Bangor University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2018-06
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
914-933
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
DOI
10.1162/jocn_a_01261
OpenAlex
W2790051968
Cited by
30
References
132
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
5.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
automatic imitation, sex differences, multiple-demand network, social cognition, neural circuits, power analysis, sample size determination
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Inhibition, Psychological, Interpersonal Relations, Magnetic Resonance Imaging

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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