Cited by 142Action Observation and SynchronizationFace Recognition and PerceptionSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

The Control of Mimicry by Eye Contact Is Mediated by Medial Prefrontal Cortex

Open access
Wang, Yin, Ramsey, Richard, de C. Hamilton, Antonia F.·2011·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Spontaneous mimicry of other people's actions serves an important social function, enhancing affiliation and social interaction. This mimicry can be subtly modulated by different social contexts. We recently found behavioral evidence that direct eye gaze rapidly and specifically enhances mimicry of intransitive hand movements (Wang et al., 2011). Based on past findings linking medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) to both eye contact and the control of mimicry, we hypothesized that mPFC might be the neural origin of this behavioral effect. The present study aimed to test this hypothesis. During functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning, 20 human participants performed a simple mimicry or no-mimicry task, as previously described (Wang et al., 2011), with direct gaze present on half of the trials. As predicted, fMRI results showed that performing the task activated mirror systems, while direct gaze and inhibition of the natural tendency to mimic both engaged mPFC. Critically, we found an interaction between mimicry and eye contact in mPFC, superior temporal sulcus (STS) and inferior frontal gyrus. We then used dynamic causal modeling to contrast 12 possible models of information processing in this network. Results supported a model in which eye contact controls mimicry by modulating the connection strength from mPFC to STS. This suggests that mPFC is the originator of the gaze–mimicry interaction and that it modulates sensory input to the mirror system. Thus, our results demonstrate how different components of the social brain work together to on-line control mimicry according to the social context.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0845-11.2011

Cites

52 of 52 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 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 Wang et al. (2011)

    Materials and Methods (page unavailable) says this study used a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm used in earlier studies and stimuli identical to those in Wang et al. (2011). That supports similarity with some prior work, but the paper does not compare the tasks in all studies included in the citing document’s meta-analysis or establish that their conceptual, visual, and cognitive differences were only minor. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • mPFC has been demonstrated to exert a top-down influence during modulation of imitation via direct gaze.

    “For example, mPFC has been demonstrated to exert a top-down influence during modulation of imitation via direct gaze (Wang et al., 2011).”

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
Wang, Y., Ramsey, R., & de C. Hamilton, A. F.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2011-08-17
Volume
31
Issue
33
Pages
12001-12010
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2048077272
Cited by
141
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 7
FWCI
20.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/F001649/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
eye contact, direct gaze, medial prefrontal cortex, mirror system, superior temporal sulcus, inferior frontal gyrus, social brain, social environment, dynamic causal modeling, hand movement, social affiliation
MeSH terms
Adult, Eye Movements, Facial Expression, Female, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Male, Photic Stimulation, Social Perception, Visual Perception, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult

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