Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34994997›Full record

ArticleBrain and behavior2022

A neural signature for combined action observation and motor imagery? An fNIRS study into prefrontal activation, automatic imitation, and self-other perceptions.

Jonathan R Emerson, Matthew W Scott, Paul van Schaik, Natalie Butcher, Ryan P W Kenny, Daniel L Eaves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain and behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jonathan R EmersonSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4164-9688
Matthew W ScottSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1062-3490
Paul van SchaikDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Humanities & Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5322-6554
Natalie ButcherDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Humanities & Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0154-0530
Ryan P W KennyPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9743-4259
Daniel L EavesSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2436-7694

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionResearch indicates that both observed and imagined actions can be represented in the brain as two parallel sensorimotor representations. One proposal is that higher order cognitive processes would align these two hypothetical action simulations.

methodsWe investigated this hypothesis using an automatic imitation paradigm, with functional near-infrared spectroscopy recordings over the prefrontal cortex during different motor simulation states. On each trial, participants (n = 14) observed a picture of a rhythmical action (instructed action) followed by a distractor movie showing the same or different action. Participants then executed the instructed action. Distractor actions were manipulated to be fast or slow, and instructions were manipulated during distractor presentation: action observation (AO), combined action observation and motor imagery (AO+MI) and observe to imitate (intentional imitation). A pure motor imagery (MI) condition was also included.

resultsKinematic analyses showed that although distractor speed effects were significant under all instructions (shorter mean cycle times in execution for fast compared to slow trials), this imitation bias was significantly stronger for combined AO+MI than both AO and MI, and stronger for intentional imitation than the other three automatic imitation conditions. In the left prefrontal cortex, cerebral oxygenation was significantly greater for combined AO+MI than all other instructions. Participants reported that their representation of the self overlapped with the observed model significantly more during AO+MI than AO.

conclusionLeft prefrontal activation may therefore be a neural signature of AO+MI, supporting attentional switching between concurrent representations of self (MI, top-down) and other (AO, bottom-up) to increase imitation and perceived closeness.

Indexed as

Imitative BehaviorPrefrontal CortexBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansImaginationaction planning and controldemonstrationmental practiceperceived closenessself-other distinctionsocial cognition

Identifiers

PMID34994997
PMCPMC8865155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.