Jansson, Erik, Wilson, Andrew, Williams, Justin and Mon-Williams, Mark. (2007) Methodological problems undermine tests of the ideo-motor conjecture. Experimental Brain Research, Vol.182 (No.4). pp. 549-558. ISSN 0014-4819

Preview

PDF WRAP_Wilson_Jansson_et_al__Manuscript.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (175Kb)

Abstract

Recent behavioural research has investigated whether viewing someone perform an action results in activation of that action by the observer. Postulated empirical support for this `ideo-motor (IM) conjecture' typically rests upon two types of experimental paradigm (reaction time and movement tracking tasks). These paradigms purport to show movement facilitation when compatible movements are observed and vice versa, but only for biological stimuli. Unfortunately, these paradigms often contain confounding (and unavoidable) generic stimulus-response compatibility effects that are not restricted to observed human movement. The current study demonstrates in three experiments that equivalent compatibility effects can be produced by non-biological stimuli. These results suggest that existing empirical paradigms may not, and perhaps cannot, support the IM-conjecture.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Divisions:	Faculty of Science > Psychology
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Learning, psychology of, Behavioral research
Journal or Publication Title:	Experimental Brain Research
Publisher:	Springer
ISSN:	0014-4819
Date:	26 June 2007
Volume:	Vol.182
Number:	No.4
Page Range:	pp. 549-558
Identification Number:	10.1007/s00221-007-1013-1
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
References:	Aicken, M.D., Wilson, A.D., Williams, J.H.G., Mon-Williams M. (2007). Methodological issues in measures of imitative reaction times. Brain & Cognition 63, 304-308. Brass, M. and Heyes, C. (2005) Imitation: is cognitive neuroscience solving the correspondence problem. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 489–495. Brass, M., Bekkering, H. and Prinz, W. (2001) Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106, 3–22. Brass, M., Derrfuss, J., Matthes-von Cramon, G., and von Cramon, D. Y. (2003). Imitative response tendencies in patients with frontal brain lesions. Neuropsychology, 17, 265–271. De Jong, R. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task incertainty. Acta Psychologica, 88, 187–207. Fitts, P. M. and Seeger, C. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology,46, 199-210. Gallese, V. and Goldman, A. (1998) Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive science, 12, 493–501. Gibson, E. J. (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Perceiving, acting, and knowing, (Eds.) R. E. Shaw and J. Bransford. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Harris, C.M. and Wolpert, D.M. (1998) Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394, 780–784 Hommel, B. (1996) S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49 (3), 546-571. Iacoboni, M., Koski, L.M., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Woods, R. P., Dubeau, M. C.,Mazziotta, J. C. and Rizzolatti, G. (2001) Reafferent copies of imitated actions in the right superior temporal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98, 13995–13999. James, W. (1890) The principles of psychology. London: Macmillan. Kent, S. W., Wilson, A. D., Plumb, M. S., Williams, J. H. G., & Mon-Williams, M (submitted). The influence of hysteresis on grip selection in adults and children with and without autism. Kilner, J.M., Paulignan, Y. and Blakemore, S.J (2003) An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Current Biology, 13, 522–525. Miall, C.R., Imamizu, H. & Miyauchi, S. (2000) Activation of the cerebellum in co-ordinated eye and hand tracking movements: an fMRI study. Experimental Brain Research, 135, 1432-1106 Meltzoff, A. N. and Decety, J. (2003) What imitation tells us about social cognition: A rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 358:491–500. Press, C., Bird, G., Flach, R. and Heyes, C. (2005) Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 632–640. Ratcliff, R. (1979). Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 446-461. Rizzolatti., G. (2005) The mirror neuron system and its function in humans. Anatomy and Embryology, 210, 419–421. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L. and Gallese. V (2001) Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2:661-670. Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284–288 Sommerville, J., A. and Decety, J. (2006) Weaving the fabric of social interaction: articulating developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience in the domain of motor cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13 (2), 179-200. Stock, A. and Stock, C. (2004) A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68, 176–188. Stoffels, E. J. (1996). On stage robustness and response selection: Further Evidence. Acta Psychologica, 91, 67-88. van der Lubbe, R. H. J., Los, S. A., Jas´kowski, P., and Verleger, R. (2004). Being prepared on time: On the importance of the previous foreperiod to current preparation, as reflected in speed, force and preparation-related brain potentials. Acta Psychologica, 116, 245–262. van Donkelaar, P, Lee, R. G., and Gellman, R. S. (1994) The contribution of retinal and extraretinal signals to manual tracking movements. Experimental Brain Research, 99, 155–163 Vu, K. P. L. and Proctor, R. W. (2004) Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: Elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 57, 539–556. Wilson, M, & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131(3), 460-473. Wolpert, D., Ghahramani, Z., and Flanagan, R. (2001) Perspectives and problems in motor learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 487–494.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/405

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item