Cognitive Science 37 (4):605-630 (2013)
|Abstract||Automatic imitation or “imitative compatibility” is thought to be mediated by the mirror neuron system and to be a laboratory model of the motor mimicry that occurs spontaneously in naturalistic social interaction. Imitative compatibility and spatial compatibility effects are known to depend on different stimulus dimensions—body movement topography and relative spatial position. However, it is not yet clear whether these two types of stimulus–response compatibility effect are mediated by the same or different cognitive processes. We present an interactive activation model of imitative and spatial compatibility, based on a dual-route architecture, which substantiates the view they are mediated by processes of the same kind. The model, which is in many ways a standard application of the interactive activation approach, simulates all key results of a recent study by Catmur and Heyes (2011). Specifically, it captures the difference in the relative size of imitative and spatial compatibility effects; the lack of interaction when the imperative and irrelevant stimuli are presented simultaneously; the relative speed of responses in a quintile analysis when the imperative and irrelevant stimuli are presented simultaneously; and the different time courses of the compatibility effects when the imperative and irrelevant stimuli are presented asynchronously|
|Keywords||Interactive activation Automatic imitation Dual‐route model Spatial compatibility Imitative compatibility Mirror neuron system|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael A. Arbib & James Bonaiuto (2007). From Grasping to Complex Imitation: Mirror Systems on the Path to Language. Mind and Society 7 (1):43-64.
Jeffrey P. Toth, Brian Levine, Donald T. Stuss, Alfred Oh, Gordon Winocur & Nachshon Meiran (1995). Dissociation of Processes Underlying Spatial S-R Compatibility: Evidence for the Independent Influence of What and Where. Consciousness and Cognition 4 (4):483-501.
Rik Peels (forthcoming). "Are Naturalism and Moral Realism Incompatible?". Religious Studies.
Stefan Huber, Korbinian Moeller, Hans-Christoph Nuerk & Klaus Willmes (2013). A Computational Modeling Approach on Three‐Digit Number Processing. Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (2):317-334.
Elhanan Borenstein & Eytan Ruppin (2005). The Evolutionary Link Between Mirror Neurons and Imitation: An Evolutionary Adaptive Agents Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):127-128.
Ping Tian (2009). Narrow Memory and Wide Knowledge: An Argument for the Compatibility of Externalism and Self-Knowledge. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 4 (4):604-615.
J. Wilberding (2005). "Creeping Spatiality": The Location of Nous in Plotinus' Universe. Phronesis 50 (4):315 - 334.
Wilberding (2005). "Creeping Spatiality": The Location of Nous in Plotinus' Universe. Phronesis 50 (4):315-334.
Stefan Vogt & David Carey (1998). Toward a Microanalysis of Imitative Actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):705-706.
Ádám Miklósi (1998). In the Search for the Functional Homology of Human Imitation: Take Play Seriously! Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):699-700.
John V. Canfield (1962). The Compatibility of Free Will and Determinism. Philosophical Review 71 (July):352-368.
Patrick J. Coffey (1988). Humanae Vitae and Licit Contraception? Philosophy and Theology 3 (2):172-182.
Herbert L. Roitblat (1998). Mechanisms of Imitation: The Relabeled Story. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):701-702.
Saul Smilansky (2008). Fischer's Way: The Next Level. Journal of Ethics 12 (2):147 - 155.
Added to index2012-05-12
Total downloads10 ( #107,734 of 556,912 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #27,428 of 556,912 )
How can I increase my downloads?