title: Sensorimotor experience enhances automatic imitation of robotic action.
abstract: 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.
authors: Department of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AP, UK. c.press@ucl.ac.uk
authors: Clare
authors: C
authors: Press
authors: Helge
authors: H
authors: Gillmeister
authors: Cecilia
authors: C
authors: Heyes
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D006225:Hand / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009068:Movement / Q000502:physiology; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D012371:Robotics
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Jun 1;5(6):253-261
references: 11390296
references: Neuroimage. 2004 Sep;23(1):187-92
references: 15325365
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 29;100(9):5497-502
references: 12682281
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Oct;9(10):489-95
references: 16126449
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 1998 Dec 1;2(12):493-501
references: 21227300
references: Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):1257-67
references: 16530429
references: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Dec;25(3):632-40
references: 16344220
references: Cereb Cortex. 2005 Aug;15(8):1243-9
references: 15616133
references: Eur J Neurosci. 2001 Jan;13(2):400-4
references: 11168545
references: Eur J Neurosci. 2004 Oct;20(8):2193-202
references: 15450099
references: Eur J Neurosci. 2006 Oct;24(8):2415-9
references: 17042792
references: Neuroimage. 2007 May 1;35(4):1674-84
references: 17395490
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 29;358(1431):491-500
references: 12689375
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Feb;17(2):212-26
references: 15811234
references: Psychopathology. 2003 Jul-Aug;36(4):171-80
references: 14504450
references: Neuroreport. 2000 Jan 17;11(1):109-15
references: 10683840
references: Curr Biol. 2006 Oct 10;16(19):1905-10
references: 17027486
references: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Feb;22(2):233-40
references: 15653296
references: Curr Biol. 2004 Jan 20;14(2):117-20
references: 14738732
references: Psychol Bull. 1979 May;86(3):446-61
references: 451109
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2001 Jan;106(1-2):3-22
references: 11256338
references: J Sports Sci. 2007 Mar;25(5):497-517
references: 17365538
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Feb;17(2):282-93
references: 15811240
references: PLoS Biol. 2005 Mar;3(3):e79
references: 15736981
references: Psychol Rev. 2003 Oct;110(4):713-27
references: 14599239
references: Curr Biol. 2003 Mar 18;13(6):522-5
references: 12646137