Imitation of lateralised body movements: doing it the hard way

Two experiments examined imitation of lateralised body movement sequences presented at six viewing angles (0º, 60º, 120º, 180º, 240º, and 300º rotation relative to the participant’s body). Experiment 1 found that, when participants were instructed simply to ‘‘do what the model does’’, at all viewing angles they produced more actions using the same side of the body as the model (anatomical matches), than actions using the opposite side (anatomical non-matches). In Experiment 2 participants were instructed to produce either anatomical matches or anatomical non-matches of observed actions. When the model was viewed from behind (0º), the anatomically matching group were more accurate than the anatomically non-matching group, but the non-matching group was superior when the model faced the participant (180º and 240º). No reliable differences were observed between groups at 60º, 120º, and 300º. In combination, the results of Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that, when they are confronting a model, people choose to imitate the hard way; they attempt to match observed actions anatomically, in spite of the fact that anatomical matching is more subject to error than anatomical non-matching.

Automatic imitation of intransitive actions

Previous research has indicated a potential discontinuity between monkey and human ventral premotor-parietal mirror systems, namely that monkey mirror systems process only transitive (object-directed) actions, whereas human mirror systems may also process intransitive (non-object-directed) actions. The present study investigated this discontinuity by seeking evidence of automatic imitation of intransitive actions—hand opening and closing—in humans using a simple reaction time (RT), stimulus–response compatibility paradigm. Left–right and up–down spatial compatibility were controlled by ensuring that stimuli were presented and responses executed in orthogonal planes, and automatic imitation was isolated from simple and complex orthogonal spatial compatibility by varying the anatomical identity of the stimulus hand and response hemispace, respectively. In all conditions, action compatible responding was faster than action incompatible responding, and no effects of spatial compatibility were observed. This experiment therefore provides evidence of automatic imitation of intransitive actions, and support for the hypothesis that human and monkey mirror systems differ with respect to the processing of intransitive actions.

Stimulus-driven selection of routes to imitation

Several models have proposed that an action can be imitated via one of two routes: a direct visuospatial route, which can in principle mediate imitation of both meaningful (MF) and meaningless (ML) actions, and an indirect semantic route, which can be used only for MF actions. The present study investigated whether selection between the direct and indirect routes is strategic or stimulus driven. Tessari and Rumiati (J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30:1107–1116, 2004) have previously shown, using accuracy measures, that imitation of MF actions is superior to imitation of ML actions when the two action types are presented in separate blocks, and that the advantage of MF over ML items is smaller or absent when they are presented in mixed blocks. We first replicated this finding using an automated reaction time (RT), as well as accuracy, measure. We then examined imitation of MF and ML actions in the mixed condition as a function of the action type presented in the previous trial and in relation to the number of previous test trials. These analyses showed that (1) for both action types, performance was worse immediately after ML than MF trials, and (2) even at the beginning of the mixed condition, responding to MF actions was no better than responding to ML items. These results suggest that the properties of the action stimulus play a substantial role in determining whether imitation is mediated by the direct or the indirect route, and that effects of block composition on imitation need not be generated through strategic switching between routes.

Visuotactile learning and body representation: an ERP study with rubber hands and rubber objects

We studied how the integration of seen and felt tactile stimulation modulates somatosensory processing, and investigated whether visuotactile integration depends on temporal contiguity of stimulation, and its coherence with a pre-existing body representation. During training, participants viewed a rubber hand or a rubber object that was tapped either synchronously with stimulation of their own hand, or in an uncorrelated fashion. In a subsequent test phase, somatosensory event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to tactile stimulation of the left or right hand, to assess how tactile processing was affected by previous visuotactile experience during training. An enhanced somatosensory N140 component was elicited after synchronous, compared with uncorrelated, visuotactile training, irrespective of whether participants viewed a rubber hand or rubber object. This early effect of visuotactile integration on somatosensory processing is interpreted as a candidate electrophysiological correlate of the rubber hand illusion that is determined by temporal contiguity, but not by pre-existing body representations. ERPmodulations were observed beyond 200msec post-stimulus, suggesting an attentional bias induced by visuotactile training. These late modulations were absent when the stimulation of a rubber hand and the participant’s own hand was uncorrelated during training, suggesting that pre-existing body representations may affect later stages of tactile processing.

Intact automatic imitation of human and robot actions in autism spectrum disorders

The existence of a specialized imitation module in humans is hotly debated. Studies suggesting a specific imitation impairment in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) support a modular view. However, the voluntary imitation tasks used in these studies (which require socio-cognitive abilities in addition to imitation for successful performance) cannot support claims of a specific impairment. Accordingly, an automatic imitation paradigm (a ‘cleaner’ measure of imitative ability) was used to assess the imitative ability of 16 adults with ASD and 16 non-autistic matched control participants. Participants performed a prespecified hand action in response to observed hand actions performed either by a human or a robotic hand. On compatible trials the stimulus and response actions matched, while on incompatible trials the two actions did not match. Replicating previous findings, the Control group showed an automatic imitation effect: responses on compatible trials were faster than those on incompatible trials. This effect was greater when responses were made to human than to robotic actions (‘animacy bias’). The ASD group also showed an automatic imitation effect and a larger animacy bias than the Control group. We discuss these findings with reference to the literature on imitation in ASD and theories of imitation.

ERP correlates of shared control mechanisms involved in saccade preparation and in covert attention

We investigated whether attention shifts and eye movement preparation are mediated by shared control mechanisms, as claimed by the premotor theory of attention. ERPs were recorded in three tasks where directional cues presented at the beginning of each trial instructed participants to direct their attention to the cued side without eye movements (Covert task), to prepare an eye movement in the cued direction without attention shifts (Saccade task) or both (Combined task). A peripheral visual Go/Nogo stimulus that was presented 800 ms after cue onset signalled whether responses had to be executed or withheld. Lateralised ERP components triggered during the cue–target interval, which are assumed to reflect preparatory control mechanisms that mediate attentional orienting, were very similar across tasks. They were also present in the Saccade task, which was designed to discourage any concomitant covert attention shifts. These results support the hypothesis that saccade preparation and attentional orienting are implemented by common control structures. There were however systematic differences in the impact of eye movement programming and covert attention on ERPs triggered in response to visual stimuli at cued versus uncued locations. It is concluded that, although the preparatory processes underlying saccade programming and covert attentional orienting may be based on common mechanisms, they nevertheless differ in their spatially specific effects on visual information processing.

Sensorimotor experience enhances automatic imitation of robotic action

Recent research in cognitive neuroscience has found that observation of human actions activates the ‘mirror system’ and provokes automatic imitation to a greater extent than observation of non-biological movements. The present study investigated whether this human bias depends primarily on phylogenetic or ontogenetic factors by examining the effects of sensorimotor experience on automatic imitation of non-biological robotic, stimuli. Automatic imitation of human and robotic action stimuli was assessed before and after training. During these test sessions, participants were required to execute a pre-specified response (e.g. to open their hand) while observing a human or robotic hand making a compatible (opening) or incompatible (closing) movement. During training, participants executed opening and closing hand actions while observing compatible (group CT) or incompatible movements (group IT) of a robotic hand. Compatible, but not incompatible, training increased automatic imitation of robotic stimuli (speed of responding on compatible trials, compared with incompatible trials) and abolished the human bias observed at pre-test. These findings suggest that the development of the mirror system depends on sensorimotor experience, and that, in our species, it is biased in favour of human action stimuli because these are more abundant than non-biological action stimuli in typical developmental environments.

Manual response preparation and saccade programming are linked to attention shifts: ERP evidence for covert attentional orienting and spatially specific modulations of visual processing

The premotor theory of attention claims that attentional shifts are triggered during response programming, regardless of which response modality is involved. To investigate this claim, event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded while participants covertly prepared a left or right response, as indicated by a precue presented at the beginning of each trial. Cues signalled a left or right eye movement in the saccade task, and a left or right manual response in the manual task. The cued response had to be executed or withheld following the presentation of a Go/Nogo stimulus. Although there were systematic differences between ERPs triggered during covert manual and saccade preparation, lateralised ERP components sensitive to the direction of a cued response were very similar for both tasks, and also similar to the components previously found during cued shifts of endogenous spatial attention. This is consistent with the claim that the control of attention and of covert response preparation are closely linked. N1 components triggered by task-irrelevant visual probes presented during the covert response preparation interval were enhanced when these probes were presented close to cued response hand in the manual task, and at the saccade target location in the saccade task. This demonstrates that both manual and saccade preparation result in spatially specific modulations of visual processing, in line with the predictions of the premotor theory.

The brain’s fingers and hands

The brain keeps track of the changing positions of body parts in space using a spatial body schema. When subjects localise a tactile stimulus on the skin, they might either use a somatotopic body map, or use a body schema to identify the location of the stimulation in external space. Healthy subjects were touched on the fingertips, with the hands in one of two postures: either the right hand was vertically above the left, or the fingers of both hands were interwoven. Subjects made speeded verbal responses to identify either the finger or the hand that was touched. Interweaving the fingers significantly impaired hand identification across several experiments, but had no effect on finger identification. Our results suggest that identification of fingers occurs in a somatotopic representation or finger schema. Identification of hands uses a general body schema, and is influenced by external spatial location. This dissociation implies that touches on the finger can only be identified with a particular hand after a process of assigning fingers to hands. This assignment is based on external spatial location. Our results suggest a role of the body schema in the identification of structural body parts from touch.

Bottom-up, not top-down, modulation of imitation by human and robotic models

Visual observation of human actions provokes more motor activation than observation of robotic actions. We investigated the extent to which this visuomotor priming effect is mediated by bottom-up or top-down processing. The bottom-up hypothesis suggests that robotic movements are less effective in activating the ‘mirror system’ via pathways from visual areas via the superior temporal sulcus to parietal and premotor cortices. The top-down hypothesis postulates that beliefs about the animacy of a movement stimulus modulate mirror system activity via descending pathways from areas such as the temporal pole and prefrontal cortex. In an automatic imitation task, subjects performed a prespecified movement (e.g. hand opening) on presentation of a human or robotic hand making a compatible (opening) or incompatible (closing) movement. The speed of responding on compatible trials, compared with incompatible trials, indexed visuomotor priming. In the first experiment, robotic stimuli were constructed by adding a metal and wire ‘wrist’ to a human hand. Questionnaire data indicated that subjects believed these movements to be less animate than those of the human stimuli but the visuomotor priming effects of the human and robotic stimuli did not differ. In the second experiment, when the robotic stimuli were more angular and symmetrical than the human stimuli, human movements elicited more visuomotor priming than the robotic movements. However, the subjects’ beliefs about the animacy of the stimuli did not affect their performance. These results suggest that bottom-up processing is primarily responsible for the visuomotor priming advantage of human stimuli.

Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation

Recent behavioural and neuroimaging studies have found that observation of human movement, but not of robotic movement, gives rise to visuomotor priming. This implies that the 'mirror neuron' or 'action observation–execution matching' system in the premotor and parietal cortices is entirely unresponsive to robotic movement. The present study investigated this hypothesis using an 'automatic imitation' stimulus–response compatibility procedure. Participants were required to perform a prespecified movement (e.g. opening their hand) on presentation of a human or robotic hand in the terminal posture of a compatible movement (opened) or an incompatible movement (closed). Both the human and the robotic stimuli elicited automatic imitation; the prespecified action was initiated faster when it was cued by the compatible movement stimulus than when it was cued by the incompatible movement stimulus. However, even when the human and robotic stimuli were of comparable size, colour and brightness, the human hand had a stronger effect on performance. These results suggest that effector shape is sufficient to allow the action observation–matching system to distinguish human from robotic movement. They also indicate, as one would expect if this system develops through learning, that to varying degrees both human and robotic action can be 'simulated' by the premotor and parietal cortices.

Visual enhancement of touch in spatial body representation

Perception of our own bodies is based on integration of visual and tactile inputs, notably by neurons in the brain’s parietal lobes. Here we report a behavioural consequence of this integration process. Simply viewing the arm can speed up reactions to an invisible tactile stimulus on the arm. We observed this visual enhancement effect only when a tactile task required spatial computation within a topographic map of the body surface and the judgements made were close to the limits of performance. This effect of viewing the body surface was absent or reversed in tasks that either did not require a spatial computation or in which judgements were well above performance limits. We consider possible mechanisms by which vision may influence tactile processing.