Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35212771›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2022

Model expertise does not influence automatic imitation.

Maura Nevejans, Emiel Cracco

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Maura NevejansDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Emiel CraccoDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. emiel.cracco@ugent.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4043-5992

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 12U0322NFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek FWO18/PDO/049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social learning theories state that new skills can be learned by observing others. Automatic imitation is thought to play an important role in this process. However, whether imitation is beneficial to learning critically depends on the expertise of the imitated person. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of model expertise on automatic imitation, by comparing automatic imitation of an expert and non-expert model in two within-subject experiments. In a first experiment (N = 61), we manipulated the perception of expertise in one task and tested how this influenced automatic imitation in a separate task. However, in contrast to our hypothesis, and in spite of a successful manipulation check, we did not find evidence for an effect of model expertise on imitative behavior. To exclude the alternative explanation that this was due to a lack of transfer of expertise attribution, we then conducted a second, preregistered experiment (N = 125), in which we manipulated model expertise using the same task also used to measure automatic imitation. However, in line with the results of Experiment 1, we found no evidence for an effect of model expertise on imitative behavior. These results put important constraints on the role of automatic imitation in motor learning.

Indexed as

Imitative BehaviorLearningHumansAutomatic imitationModel expertiseMotor learningSelective social learning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.