Is Automatic Imitation Based on Goal Coding or Movement Coding?

Abstract

A key issue for research on automatic imitation is whether it occurs primarily at the level of movements, that is, by automatically activating a representation of the movement/effector involved in the execution of the observed action, or at the level of goals, that is, by triggering a representation of the action goal, irrespective of how the motor act is physically instantiated. The present study presents two experiments aimed at investigating the contribution of movement coding and goal coding to automatic imitation, by assessing participants' performance in a spatial compatibility task where the observed stimuli were goal-directed and goal-less actions, which have been demonstrated to elicit, respectively, goal and movement coding. We found a significant automatic imitation effect both when the stimuli were goal-less actions and when they were actions directed toward a goal. However, the effect was stronger for the goal-less actions, even after controlling for saliency effects. These results suggest that goal coding contributes to automatic imitation, but to a lesser degree compared to movement coding. The implications of these results for theory and research on automatic imitation are discussed.

The interaction between embodiment and empathy in facial expression recognition

“…What we actually found was that when facial movement was restricted, high empathy individuals took longer to recognize facial expressions. This too is in line with previous studies ( Strack et al , 1988 ; Chiavarino et al , 2013 ; Rychlowska et al , 2014 ), however, unexpectedly, low empathy individuals were faster in recognizing facial expression. The latter is a surprising and novel finding that to the best of our knowledge has not been reported yet.…”

“…These results also affirm our hypothesis that interfering with the imitation process of one action will significantly only affect the understanding of a related action. However, in our second hypothesis we predicted that this impairment will be more pronounced in individuals with high empathy levels compared with individuals with lower empathy levels, as found in previous studies of mimicry restriction ( Strack et al , 1988 ; Chiavarino et al , 2013 ; Rychlowska et al , 2014 ). However, what we found was that the interference was modulated by the empathy level in a way that created a dis-ordinal interaction, where the direction of the correlation of the experimental condition was reversed to the correlation of the control group (see Figure 4 ).…”

“…The mechanism of mimicry and its involvement in expression or action comprehension has been also explored through the modulation of the mimicry process. Reports from Chiavarino et al (2013) , Davis et al (2015 , 2017) , Oberman et al (2007) , Strack et al (1988) and Rychlowska et al (2014) all employed paradigms of facial restrictions and implied that restricting the ability to imitate observed situations changes the way we comprehend the situations even though the imitation is not visibly executed. Neal and Chartrand (2011) found that dampening facial feedback signals, and conversely, amplifying facial feedback signals, affected the ability to read others’ facial emotions.…”

Are goal states represented during kinematic imitation?

“…Furthermore, one other direct matching study has shown an effect that is opposite to what might be expected if goals are represented (i.e., a significantly smaller effect for actions that are compatible with those observed (Chiavarino, Bugiani, Grandi, & Colle, 2013).…”

“…Although Wohlschläger and Bekkering (2002) did find an influence of goals on movements, whilst Chiavarino et al's (2013) found a counterintuitive effect of goal compatibility; i.e., a larger behavioural effect when participants' goals differed from those of a model. phenomenon with reference to a number of theoretical processes.…”