Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli
-
Published:2022-11-28
Issue:
Volume:
Page:
-
ISSN:1069-9384
-
Container-title:Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Psychon Bull Rev
Author:
Wilt Hannah, Wu Yuchunzi, Trotter Antony, Adank PattiORCID
Abstract
AbstractObserving someone perform an action automatically activates neural substrates associated with executing that action. This covert response, or automatic imitation, is measured behaviourally using the stimulus–response compatibility (SRC) task. In an SRC task, participants are presented with compatible and incompatible response–distractor pairings (e.g., an instruction to say “ba” paired with an audio recording of “da” as an example of an incompatible trial). Automatic imitation is measured as the difference in response times (RT) or accuracy between incompatible and compatible trials. Larger automatic imitation effects have been interpreted as a larger covert imitation response. Past results suggest that an action’s biological status affects automatic imitation: Human-produced manual actions show enhanced automatic imitation effects compared with computer-generated actions. Per the integrated theory for language comprehension and production, action observation triggers a simulation process to recognize and interpret observed speech actions involving covert imitation. Human-generated actions are predicted to result in increased automatic imitation because the simulation process is predicted to engage more for actions produced by a speaker who is more similar to the listener. We conducted an online SRC task that presented participants with human and computer-generated speech stimuli to test this prediction. Participants responded faster to compatible than incompatible trials, showing an overall automatic imitation effect. Yet the human-generated and computer-generated vocal stimuli evoked similar automatic imitation effects. These results suggest that computer-generated speech stimuli evoke the same covert imitative response as human stimuli, thus rejecting predictions from the integrated theory of language comprehension and production.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference47 articles.
1. Adank, P., Hagoort, P., & Bekkering, H. (2010). Imitation improves language comprehension. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1903–1909. 2. Adank, P., Nuttall, H. E., Bekkering, H., & Maegherman, G. (2018). Effects of stimulus response compatibility on covert imitation of vowels. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(5), 1290–1299. 3. Balota, D. A., Aschenbrenner, A. J., & Yap, M. J. (2013). Additive effects of word frequency and stimulus quality: The influence of trial history and data transformations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(5), 1563–1571. 4. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. ArXiv:1406.5823 [Stat]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823 5. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0. 37) [Computer program]. http://www.praat.org/
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|