Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35460956›Full record

ArticleHuman movement science2022

Action imitation via trajectory-based or posture-based planning.

Erica M Barhorst-Cates, Mitchell W Isaacs, Laurel J Buxbaum, Aaron L Wong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human movement science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Proprioception-based movement goals support imitation and are disrupted in apraxia.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2022
    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

4 authors.

Erica M Barhorst-CatesMoss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 60 Township Line Rd, Elkins Park, PA 19027, USA. Electronic address: Erica.Barhorst-Cates@jefferson.edu.
Mitchell W IsaacsMoss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 60 Township Line Rd, Elkins Park, PA 19027, USA.
Laurel J BuxbaumMoss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 60 Township Line Rd, Elkins Park, PA 19027, USA.
Aaron L WongMoss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 60 Township Line Rd, Elkins Park, PA 19027, USA.

Funding

Investigating a dual-pathway framework for praxisR01NS115862 · NINDS · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI Aaron L Wong · 2021 to 2026
$2.9M
Postdoctoral Training in Translational Neurorehabilitation ResearchT32HD071844 · NICHD · ALBERT EINSTEIN HEALTHCARE NETWORK · PI WHYTE, JOHN · 2013 to 2022
$2.2M
Understanding Action Selection in the Tool Use NetworkR01NS099061 · NINDS · ALBERT EINSTEIN HEALTHCARE NETWORK · PI BUXBAUM, LAUREL J · 2016 to 2020
$2.0M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD071844NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS099061NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS115862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imitation is a significant daily activity involved in social interaction and motor learning. Imitation has been theorized to be performed in at least two ways. In posture-based imitation, individuals reproduce how the body should look and feel, and are sensitive to the relative positioning of body parts. In trajectory imitation, individuals mimic the spatiotemporal motion path of the end effector. There are clear anecdotal situations in which one might benefit from imitating postures (when learning ballet) or trajectories (when learning to reach around objects). However, whether these are in fact distinct methods of imitation, and if so, whether they may be applied interchangeably to perform the same task, remain unknown. If these are indeed separate mechanisms that rely on different computational and neural resources, a cost should be incurred when switching from using one mechanism to the other within the context of a single task. Therefore, observing a processing cost would both provide evidence that these are indeed two distinct mechanisms, and that they may be used interchangeably when trying to imitate the same stimulus. To test this, twenty-five healthy young adults performed a sequential multitasking imitation task. Participants were first instructed to pay attention to the limb postures or the hand path of a video-recorded model, then performed a neutral, congruent, or incongruent intervening motor task. Finally, participants imitated the modeled movement. We examined both spatial and temporal imitation accuracy as well as individual spatial consistency. When the primary task involved imitating trajectories, analysis of individual consistency suggested a processing cost: movements following the posture-matching intervening task were less consistent with baseline (neutral) performance, suggesting performance may be disrupted by the incongruence. This effect was not observed when imitating limb postures. In summary, we present initial evidence for a difference between posture matching and trajectory imitation as a result of instructions and intervening tasks that is consistent with the existence of two computationally distinct imitation mechanisms.

Indexed as

Imitative BehaviorPostureHandHumansMovementUpper ExtremityYoung AdultPosture matching imitationSequential multitasking paradigmTrajectory imitation

Identifiers

PMID35460956
PMCPMC9670324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.