Imitation of a Model's Hand Movements: Age Changes in Transposition of Left-Right Relations

Wapner, Seymour; Cirillo, Leonard

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1968.tb04469.x

Cited by 34 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, a clear preference for ipsilateral reaches is consistently observed in early development. Contralateral reaching becomes more frequent with age both on reaching tasks during infancy (van Hof, van der Kamp, & Savelsbergh, 2002) and in hand, eye, and ear tasks in later childhood (Bekkering, Wohlschläger, & Gattis, 2000;Schofield, 1976;Wapner & Cirillo, 1968).…”

Section: Ipsilateral Biases and The Mysterious Midline Barriermentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

Longo¹,

Bertenthal²

2006

Infancy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do 9-month-old infants motorically simulate actions they perceive others perform? Two experiments tested whether action observation, like overt reaching, is sufficient to elicit the Piagetian A-not-B error. Infants recovered a toy hidden at location A or observed an experimenter recover the toy. After the toy was hidden at location B, infants in both conditions perseverated in reaching to A, demonstrating that active search by the infant is not necessary for the A-not-B error. Consistent with prior research, infants displayed an ipsilateral bias when reaching, the so-called mysterious midline barrier. A similar ipsilateral bias was also observed depending on the manner in which the experimenter reached; infants perseverated following observation of ipsi-but not contralateral reaches by the experimenter. Thus, infants perseverated only following observation of actions they themselves were able to perform, suggesting that they coded others' actions in terms of motor simulation.The ability to represent and understand the behaviors of others is crucial for interacting effectively in our social world. Much of this understanding takes place with little awareness of the perceived actions or responses that are involved. When observing the behaviors of another, we tend to implicitly know their wants, desires, and intentions (Blakemore & Decety, 2001). Moreover, our responses are automatically shaped by these behaviors (Blakemore & Frith, 2005). Dating back at least to Darwin's (1872Darwin's ( /1965 observations of spectators at sporting events, researchers have commonly noted that people will automatically imitate actions they observe others perform. For example, we direct our gaze in the same direction we see another individual look (Driver et al., 1999), and we mimic the facial Correspondence should be addressed to Matthew R. Longo,

show abstract

Section: Ipsilateral Biases and The Mysterious Midline Barriermentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

Longo¹,

Bertenthal²

2006

Infancy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings suggest that the degree of a representational overlap between executed and observed movement matters, as defined by the anatomical side of the body and the movement pattern involved. The accuracy with which observers predict forthcoming actions seems to depend on anatomical mappings between their own action and the observed action (Gillmeister, Catmur, Liepelt, Brass, & Heyes, 2008;Liepelt, Prinz, & Brass, 2010;Sambrook, 1998;Wapner & Cirillo, 1968).…”

Section: Motor Influences On Action Prediction Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Motor execution affects action prediction

Springer

Brandstädter

Liepelt

et al. 2011

Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tPrevious studies provided evidence of the claim that the prediction of occluded action involves real-time simulation. We report two experiments that aimed to study how real-time simulation is affected by simultaneous action execution under conditions of full, partial or no overlap between observed and executed actions. This overlap was analysed by comparing the body sides and the movement kinematics involved in the observed and the executed action. While performing actions, participants observed point-light (PL) actions that were interrupted by an occluder, followed by a test pose. The task was to judge whether the test pose depicted a continuation of the occluded action in the same depth angle. Using a paradigm proposed by Graf et al., we independently manipulated the duration of the occluder and the temporal advance of the test pose relative to occlusion onset (occluder time and pose time, respectively). This paradigm allows the assessment of real-time simulation, based on prediction performance across different occluder time/pose time combinations (i.e., improved task performance with decreasing time distance between occluder time and pose time is taken to reflect real-time simulation). The PL actor could be perceived as from the front or back, as indicated by task instructions. In Experiment 1 (front view instructions), evidence of action simulation was obtained for partial overlap (i.e., observed and performed action corresponded either in body side or movement kinematics), but not for full or no overlap conditions. The same pattern was obtained in Experiment 2 (back view instructions), ruling out a spatial compatibility explanation for the real-time pattern observed. Our results suggest that motor processes affect action prediction and real-time simulation. The strength of their impact varies as a function of the overlap between observed and executed actions.

show abstract

“…The results of developmental studies indicate that specular imitation is a more natural behavior than anatomic imitation Berges and Lezine 1963;Gleissner et al 2000;Kephart 1971;Schofield 1976). Indeed, specular responses predominate over nonspecular responses until 10 yr of age (Wapner and Cirillo 1968). These differences in the behavioral performance of specular and anatomic imitation would predict differences in the level of activity in the brain regions underlying imitation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of Cortical Activity During Different Imitative Behaviors

Koski

Iacoboni²,

Dubeau³

et al. 2003

Journal of Neurophysiology

240

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Modulation of cortical activity during different imitative behaviors. J Neurophysiol 89: 460 -471, 2003; 10.1152/jn.00248.2002. Imitation is a basic form of motor learning during development. We have a preference to imitate the actions of others as if looking in a mirror (specular imitation: i.e., when the actor moves the left hand, the imitator moves the right hand) rather than with the anatomically congruent hand (anatomic imitation: i.e., actor and imitator both moving the right hand). We hypothesized that this preference reflects changes in activity in previously described frontoparietal cortical areas involved in directly matching observed and executed actions (mirror neuron areas). We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to study brain activity in normal volunteers imitating left and right hand movements with their right hand. Bilateral inferior frontal and right posterior parietal cortex were more active during specular imitation compared with anatomic imitation and control motor tasks. Furthermore this same pattern of activity was also observed in the rostral part of the supplementary motor area (SMAproper) of the right hemisphere. These findings suggest that the degree of involvement of frontoparietal mirror areas in imitation depends on the nature of the imitative behavior, ruling out a linguistic mediation of these areas in imitation. Moreover, activity in the SMA appears to be tightly coupled to frontoparietal mirror areas when subjects copy the actions of others.

show abstract

Imitation of a Model's Hand Movements: Age Changes in Transposition of Left-Right Relations

Cited by 34 publications

References 5 publications

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

Motor execution affects action prediction

Modulation of Cortical Activity During Different Imitative Behaviors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About