Author:
Wilt Hannah,Wu Yuchunzi,Trotter Antony,Adank Patti
Abstract
AbstractObserving actions evokes an automatic imitative response that activates mechanisms required to execute these actions. Automatic imitation is measured using the Stimulus Response Compatibility (SRC) task, which presents participants with compatible and incompatible prompt-distractor pairs. Automatic imitation, or the compatibility effect, is the difference in response times (RTs) between incompatible and compatible trials. Past results suggest that an action’s animacy affects automatic imitation: human-produced actions evoke larger effects than computer-generated actions. However, it appears that animacy effects occur mostly when non-human stimuli are less complex or less clear. Theoretical accounts make conflicting predictions regarding both stimulus manipulations. We conducted two SRC experiments that presented participants with an animacy manipulation (human and computer-generated stimuli, Experiment 1) and a clarity manipulation (stimuli with varying visual clarity using Gaussian blurring, Experiments 1 and 2) to tease apart effect of these manipulations. Participants in Experiment 1 responded slower for incompatible than for compatible trials, showing a compatibility effect. Experiment 1 found a null effect of animacy, but stimuli with lower visual clarity evoked smaller compatibility effects. Experiment 2 modulated clarity in five steps and reports decreasing compatibility effects for stimuli with lower clarity. Clarity, but not animacy, therefore affected automatic imitation, and theoretical implications and future directions are considered.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference50 articles.
1. 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.
2. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
3. 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. Accessed 1 Oct 2023
4. Bird, G., Leighton, J., Press, C., & Heyes, C. (2007). Intact automatic imitation of human and robot actions in autism spectrum disorders. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1628), 3027–3031. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1019
5. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106(1–2), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00024-X