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

Darda, Kohinoor Monish; Butler, Emily E.; Ramsey, Richard

doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01261

Cited by 31 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 129 publications

(183 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Behavioural data have also provided some evidence for divergent validity by measuring the imitative component independent from the spatial component. These studies show that in the absence of a spatial component, the imitative component remains above zero, but is 3-4 times smaller than the spatial component (Bertenthal et al, 2006;Boyer et al, 2012;Catmur & Heyes, 2011;Darda et al, 2018;Gowen et al, 2016;Marsh et al, 2016).…”

Section: Divergent Validitymentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Approaches that include pre-registering studies, appropriately powered designs, replicating results, using meta-analyses and making datasets open and available to others would be of great benefit to imitation research. Some of these approaches are already being taken in SRC research on automatic imitation (Butler et al, 2015;2016;Cracco, Bardi et al, 2018;Darda et al, 2018;Genschow et al, 2017), but more universal adoption of these methodological principles would provide considerable benefits to current and future researchers working in this area. These methodological steps go hand-in-hand with improved theoretical models and are a necessary starting point to improve the evidence base for understanding the mechanisms associated with automatic imitation.…”

Section: More Robust Methods -Power Replication Meta-analysis Pre-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the multiple demand network has been argued to play a domain-general role in the control of automatic imitation Darda, Butler & Ramsey, 2018). The multiple demand network spans dorsolateral and dorsomedial frontoparietal cortex and has been associated with a range of executive functions, such as inhibition and working memory (Duncan, 2010).…”

Section: Reaction Time Measures Of Automatic Imitation 21 Key Featurmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, modification to a domain-general system could be the route by which social control is exerted in imitation, much like other domains of social cognition and perception that show interplay between domain-general and specific systems (Zaki et al, 2010;Baldauf & Desimone, 2014). Some prior models of imitation have included roles for domain-general processes in the control of imitation Heyes, 2011;Gowen & Poliakoff, 2012;Darda et al, 2018), but much more attention has been placed on models that include "social control", which rests on domain-specific processes Heyes & Brass, 2005;. Importantly, there is no reason why the cognitive structure proposed here, which places much greater emphasis on interactions between domain-general and domain-specific systems, could not also operate during live social interactions, such as when social factors influence overt copying behaviour (Chartrand & Lakin, 2013).…”

Section: Domain-specificitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What are reaction time indices of automatic imitation measuring?

Ramsey¹

2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans unintentionally copy other people’s gestures, postures and speech patterns. This behaviour has been termed ‘automatic imitation’, and is thought to play a crucial role in the development of social relationships by building affiliation and rapport between interaction partners. The wide-ranging impact imitation may play in social life has stimulated considerable interest among psychologists and neuroscientists, but measuring imitative behaviour with high fidelity poses a problem due to the inherent difficulty of measuring live social interactions. To study imitative processes in a more controlled manner, a reaction time measure has been developed that is argued to index processes associated with imitation. The current paper critically evaluates reaction time measures of automatic imitation and demonstrates that it is currently unclear what reaction time indices measure, due to a lack of research assessing task validity. A consequence of low validity is that a sufficiently solid foundation has not been formed for future research to build upon in a progressive manner. Based on this assessment of the literature, three suggestions are made for future research. First, studies that assess the validity of the paradigm as a measure of automatic imitation are required. Second, theories of imitation need to be developed that move beyond neat divisions between domain-specific and domain-general systems. Third, a greater focus needs to be placed on methodological rigour to enable a cumulative science to develop. In sum, by providing a critical review of the current literature, as well as suggesting new directions for the development of research questions, theories and methods, this paper aims to stimulate discussion regarding optimal approaches to studying automatic imitation. Moreover, the analysis and recommendations presented here generalise to other domains of social cognition, such as gaze perception and perspective taking, which also rely on similar reaction time paradigms.

show abstract

Section: Divergent Validitymentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: More Robust Methods -Power Replication Meta-analysis Pre-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reaction Time Measures Of Automatic Imitation 21 Key Featurmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Domain-specificitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What are reaction time indices of automatic imitation measuring?

Ramsey¹

2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings suggest that it is as yet unclear whether the sex difference on SRC measures of automatic imitation reflect more domain-general processes or processes solely tied to imitative control (Butler et al, 2015;Cracco et al, 2018;Genschow et al, 2017;Darda et al, 2018;Darda & Ramsey, 2019). The SRC task used by researchers to demonstrate the existence of a sex difference was a composite of both spatial and imitative components (Butler et al, 2015;Genschow et al, 2017).…”

Section: General Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Darda_individual_differences_cognitive_control

Darda¹,

Butler²,

Ramsey³

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive control refers to the ability of human beings to adapt flexibly and quickly to continuously changing environments. Several decades of research have identified a diverse range of mental processes that are associated with cognitive control but the extent to which shared systems underlie cognitive control in social and non-social contexts, as well as how these systems may vary across individuals, remains largely unexplored. By integrating methodological approaches from experimental and differential psychology, the current study is able to shine new light on the relationships between stable features of individuals, such as personality and sex, and the architecture of cognitive control systems using paradigms that index social (automatic imitation) and spatial processes. Across three large-sample experiments (>600 participants in total), we demonstrate that cognitive control systems are largely invariant to stable aspects of personality, but exhibit a sex difference, such that females show greater task-interference than males. Moreover, we further qualified this sex difference in two ways. First, we showed that the sex difference was unrelated to the sex of the interaction partner and therefore did not reflect an in-group bias based on sex. Second, we showed that the sex difference was tied to a form of spatial interference control rather than social (imitative) control and therefore it does not reflect a specialised mechanism for guiding social interactions exclusively. Instead, our findings suggest that a robust sex difference exists in the system (or set of subsystems) that operate in resolving a form of spatial interference control, and that such systems are unaffected by social factors such as the sex of the interaction partner. The results highlight the value of integrating approaches from experimental and differential psychology by providing a deeper understanding of the structure of cognitive control systems, whilst also providing new dimensions to incorporate into theories and models of social and non-social control.

show abstract

Exploring the relationship between anthropomorphism and theory‐of‐mind in brain and behaviour

Hortensius

Kent

Darda

et al. 2021

Human Brain Mapping

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The process of understanding the minds of other people, such as their emotions and intentions, is mimicked when individuals try to understand an artificial mind. The assumption is that anthropomorphism, attributing human‐like characteristics to non‐human agents and objects, is an analogue to theory‐of‐mind, the ability to infer mental states of other people. Here, we test to what extent these two constructs formally overlap. Specifically, using a multi‐method approach, we test if and how anthropomorphism is related to theory‐of‐mind using brain (Experiment 1) and behavioural (Experiment 2) measures. In a first exploratory experiment, we examine the relationship between dispositional anthropomorphism and activity within the theory‐of‐mind brain network (n = 108). Results from a Bayesian regression analysis showed no consistent relationship between dispositional anthropomorphism and activity in regions of the theory‐of‐mind network. In a follow‐up, pre‐registered experiment, we explored the relationship between theory‐of‐mind and situational and dispositional anthropomorphism in more depth. Participants (n = 311) watched a short movie while simultaneously completing situational anthropomorphism and theory‐of‐mind ratings, as well as measures of dispositional anthropomorphism and general theory‐of‐mind. Only situational anthropomorphism predicted the ability to understand and predict the behaviour of the film's characters. No relationship between situational or dispositional anthropomorphism and general theory‐of‐mind was observed. Together, these results suggest that while the constructs of anthropomorphism and theory‐of‐mind might overlap in certain situations, they remain separate and possibly unrelated at the personality level. These findings point to a possible dissociation between brain and behavioural measures when considering the relationship between theory‐of‐mind and anthropomorphism.

show abstract

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

Cited by 31 publications

References 129 publications

What are reaction time indices of automatic imitation measuring?

What are reaction time indices of automatic imitation measuring?

Darda_individual_differences_cognitive_control

Exploring the relationship between anthropomorphism and theory‐of‐mind in brain and behaviour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About