Complimentary lower-level and higher-order systems underpin imitation learning

Andrew, Matthew; Bennett, Simon J.; Elliott, Digby; Hayes, Spencer J.

doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2016.02.001

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

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%

Facilitating sensorimotor integration via blocked practice underpins imitation learning of atypical biological kinematics in autism spectrum disorder

Foster

Bennett

Causer

et al. 2020

Autism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reduced efficacy of voluntary imitation in autism is suggested to be underpinned by differences in sensorimotor processing. We examined whether the imitation of novel atypical biological kinematics by autistic adults is enhanced by imitating a model in a predictable blocked practice trial order. This practice structure is expected to facilitate trial-to-trial sensorimotor processing, integration and encoding of biological kinematics. The results showed that neurotypical participants were generally more effective at imitating the biological kinematics across all experimental phases. Importantly, and compared to a pre-test where imitation was performed in a randomised (unpredictable) trial order, the autistic participants learned to imitate the atypical kinematics more effectively following an acquisition phase of repeatedly imitating the same model during blocked practice. Data from the post-test showed that autistic participants remained effective at imitating the atypical biological kinematics when the models were subsequently presented in a randomised trial order. These findings show that the reduced efficacy of voluntary imitation in autism can be enhanced during learning by facilitating trial-to-trial processing and integration of sensorimotor information using blocked practice. Lay Abstract Autistic people sometimes find it difficult to copy another person’s movement accurately, especially if the movement is unfamiliar or novel (e.g. to use chop sticks). In this study, we found that autistic people were generally less accurate at copying a novel movement than non-autistic people. However, by making a small adjustment and asking people to copy this movement for a set number of attempts in a predictable manner, we showed that autistic people did successfully learn to copy a new movement. This is a very important finding for autistic people because rather than thinking they cannot copy new movements, all that needs to be considered is for parents/guardians, teachers and/or support workers to make a small adjustment so that learning occurs in a predictable manner for new skills to be successfully acquired through copying. The implications from this study are wide-ranging as copying (imitation) and motor learning are important developmental processes for autistic infants and children to acquire in order to interact within the world. Therefore, practising these behaviours in the most effective way can certainly help the developmental pathway.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Facilitating sensorimotor integration via blocked practice underpins imitation learning of atypical biological kinematics in autism spectrum disorder

Foster

Bennett

Causer

et al. 2020

Autism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This modified experimental design would allow the direct examination of behavior change as a function of learning of a novel atypical stimulus via observational practice. In terms of our current results, the data for the neurotypical group is consistent with our previous finding (Andrew et al, 2016; Hayes et al, 2014; Hayes et al, 2016b) that neurotypical learners integrate visual information within a perception‐action matching mechanism (Prinz, 1997) containing visual‐motor integration processes (Bird et al, 2005; Cross et al, 2009; Higuchi et al, 2012; McGregor & Gribble, 2015). These processes underpin the representation of atypical biological kinematics as an action‐plan that controls subsequent movement reproduction.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Although the processes subserving imitation are operational across typical development (Anisfeld, 2005; Jones, 2009; Ray & Heyes, 2011), autistic individuals can exhibit processing differences that lead to specific motor imitation (Andrew et al, 2016; DeMyer et al, 1972; Hobson & Lee, 1999; Rogers et al, 1996; Stewart et al, 2013; Tunçgenç et al, 2021; Wild et al, 2012) difficulties when reproducing lower‐level biological kinematics displayed by a model (note, other forms of imitation such as automatic imitation are operational in autism; see de Hamilton et al, 2007; Vanvuchelen et al, 2013). These differences are likely to be underpinned by a network of interacting processes, such that autistic participants can sometimes show less perceptual sensitivity to the underlying biological motion properties (e.g., velocity) of an observed movement (Cook et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observational learning of atypical biological kinematics in autism

Foster,

Bennett,

Pullar

et al. 2023

Autism Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observing and voluntarily imitating the biological kinematics displayed by a model underpins the acquisition of new motor skills via sensorimotor processes linking perception with action. Differences in voluntary imitation in autism could be related to sensorimotor processing activity during action‐observation of biological motion, as well as how sensorimotor integration processing occurs across imitation attempts. Using an observational practice protocol, which minimized the active contribution of the peripheral sensorimotor system, we examined the contribution of sensorimotor processing during action‐observation. The data showed that autistic participants imitated both the temporal duration and atypical kinematic profile of the observed movement with a similar level of accuracy as neurotypical participants. These findings suggest the lower‐level perception‐action processes responsible for encoding biological kinematics during the action‐observation phase of imitation are operational in autism. As there was no task‐specific engagement of the peripheral sensorimotor system during observational practice, imitation difficulties in autism are most likely underpinned by sensorimotor integration issues related to the processing of efferent and (re)afferent sensorimotor information during trial‐to‐trial motor execution.

show abstract

“…To conclude, we have confirmed that atypical biological kinematics associated with an observed novel action are represented and reproduced following observational practice. Although we have previously shown this effect (Andrew, Bennett, Elliott, & Hayes, 2016; Hayes et al, 2014, 2016), the current data and Bayesian analyses extend theoretical knowledge of the processes underlying observational practice by implementing a methodology that controls movement direction of a model during action-observation and thus spatial compatibility. This method better isolates the representation of atypical kinematics to sensorimotor processes rather than spatial encoding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Atypical biological kinematics are represented during observational practice.

Foster¹,

Bennett²,

Causer³

et al. 2018

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the effect of stimulus-response compatibility on the representation of atypical biological kinematics during observational practice. A compatible group observed an atypical model that moved rightward, whereas an incompatible group observed an atypical model that moved leftward. Both groups were instructed to observe the model with the intention to later reproduce the movement trajectory. This was examined in a posttest where participants were asked to move rightward with a kinematic profile that matched the atypical kinematics. Compared to a control group that did not engage in practice, and irrespective of whether the stimulus was observed in a spatially compatible or incompatible orientation, participants from both experimental groups reproduced velocity profiles that were comparable and similar to the atypical biological kinematics. Bayesian analysis indicated equality between the 2 experimental groups, thus suggesting comparable sensorimotor processing. Therefore, by rotating the incompatible stimulus by 180 degrees during observational practice, the current study has isolated the processing and representation of atypical biological kinematics to the underlying sensorimotor processes, rather than spatial encoding of peak velocity via processes associated with stimulus-response compatibility. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Complimentary lower-level and higher-order systems underpin imitation learning

Cited by 3 publications

References 52 publications

Facilitating sensorimotor integration via blocked practice underpins imitation learning of atypical biological kinematics in autism spectrum disorder

Facilitating sensorimotor integration via blocked practice underpins imitation learning of atypical biological kinematics in autism spectrum disorder

Observational learning of atypical biological kinematics in autism

Atypical biological kinematics are represented during observational practice.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About