2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.10.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Atypical biological motion kinematics are represented by complementary lower-level and top-down processes during imitation learning

Abstract: Learning a novel movement requires a new set of kinematics to be represented by the sensorimotor system. This is often accomplished through imitation learning where lowerlevel sensorimotor processes are suggested to represent the biological motion kinematics associated with an observed movement. Top-down factors have the potential to influence this process based on the social context, attention and salience, and the goal of the movement. In order to further examine the potential interaction between lower-level… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
12
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
3
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nonetheless, both groups did scale hand and eye kinematics such that peak velocity occurred earlier in the movement trajectory when imitating the atypical compared to the typical model. As well as replicating previous findings in neurotypical participants ( Andrew et al, 2016 ; Hayes, Dutoy, et al, 2016 ), this is the first evidence showing that autistic individuals can imitate novel atypical biological kinematics that would not have existed in their motor repertoire.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Nonetheless, both groups did scale hand and eye kinematics such that peak velocity occurred earlier in the movement trajectory when imitating the atypical compared to the typical model. As well as replicating previous findings in neurotypical participants ( Andrew et al, 2016 ; Hayes, Dutoy, et al, 2016 ), this is the first evidence showing that autistic individuals can imitate novel atypical biological kinematics that would not have existed in their motor repertoire.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…In addition, in research with both healthy individuals and apraxia patients, there is little use of motion-tracking for characterising imitation in an objective fashion (with some exceptions, e.g. Braadbaart et al, 2012;Campione & Gentilucci, 2011;Gold et al, 2008;Hayes et al, 2016;Hermsd€ orfer et al, 1996;Kr€ uger et al, 2014;Pan & Hamilton, 2015;Reader & Holmes, 2015;Sacheli et al, 2012Sacheli et al, , 2013Sacheli et al, , 2015aWild et al, 2010;Williams et al, 2013), despite the fact that kinematics are an important element of social interactions (Krishnan-Barman et al, 2017). With this in mind, we used a two-person motion-tracking approach in this experiment to better understand the links between actor and imitator behaviour.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whilst previous work has quantitatively examined the kinematic elements of imitative behavior in both healthy people (e.g., Braadbaart et al, 2012;Campione & Gentilucci, 2011;Era et al, 2018;Forbes & Hamilton, 2017;Gold et al, 2008;Hayes et al, 2016;KrĂŒger et al, 2014;Pan & Hamilton, 2015;Reader & Holmes, 2015;Reader et al, 2018;Sacheli et al, 2012;Sacheli et al, 2013, Sacheli, Christensen, et al, 2015Wild et al, 2010;Williams et al, 2013) and brain-damaged patients (e.g., Candidi et al, 2018;Hermsdörfer et al, 1996), as far as we are aware no previous experiments have looked at so many components of the velocity profile in order to compare the coarse-grained (i.e., wrist) kinematic approach to meaningful and meaningless action imitation. Much informative work has been done to assess action performance in meaningful and meaningless action imitation (e.g., Buxbaum et al, 2014;Goldenberg & Hagmann, 1997;Mengotti et al, 2013), but frequently using only subjective rating measures.…”
Section: Kinematics In Meaningful and Meaningless Action Imitationmentioning
confidence: 99%