ArticlePloS one2026
Does experience modulate automatic imitation? A new look.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automatic imitation is a stimulus-response compatibility effect wherein observing an action automatically influences motor performance. However, the mechanism underlying this effect remains controversial. Associative Sequence Learning suggests that automatic imitation arises from contingent visual and motor activity associations. Prior studies have shown that exposure to counter-imitative training can alter these visuomotor associations, suggesting that automatic imitation can be modulated by experience. Here, we aim to bring new insight into how this modulation occurs by exploring the time course of automatic imitation before and after counter-imitative training. If automatic imitation is merely a result of contingent associations, as previously suggested, the effect should consistently be modulated following such training. However, our findings show that automatic imitation is not significantly reduced after counter-imitative training at all the tested time points. This suggests that automatic imitation does not depend on contingent association, at least not as currently understood.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.