Spatial S-R compatibility effects in an intentional imitation task

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 703-708

  Heyes, Cecilia ^a   Ray, Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONDITIONED REFLEX; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; IMITATION; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REACTION TIME; VIDEORECORDING;

ADULT; CONDITIONING, CLASSICAL; HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; INTENTION; MOVEMENT; REACTION TIME; SPACE PERCEPTION; VIDEOTAPE RECORDING;

EID: 15544388547     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196623     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. BRASS, M., BEKKERING, H., & PRINZ, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106, 3-22.
2. DAUTENHAHN, K., & NEHANIV, C. L (EDS.) (2002). Imitation in animals and artifacts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. DEJONG, R., LIANG, C.-C., & LAUBER, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 731-750.
4. FODOR, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. GROSSMAN, E. D., & BLAKE, R. (2002). Brain areas active during visual perception of biological motion. Neuron, 35, 1167-1175.
6. HEDGE, A., & MARSH, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427-439.
7. HEYES, C. M. (2001). Causes and consequences of imitation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 253-261.
8. LU, C.-H., & PROCTOR, R. W. (1994). Processing of an irrelevant location dimension as a function of the relevant stimulus dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 286-298.
9. MELTZOFF, A. N., & DECETY, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: A rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B, 358, 491-500.
10. MELTZOFF, A. N., & MOORE, M. K. (1997). Explaining facial imitation: A theoretical model. Early Development & Parenting, 6, 179-192.
11. PRINZ, W. (2002). Experimental approaches to imitation. In A. N. Meltzoff & W. Prinz (Eds.), The imitative mind (pp. 143-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. PYLYSHYN, Z. W. (1981). The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge. Psychological Review, 88, 16-45.
13. SAMBROOK, T. D. (1998). Does visual perspective matter in imitation? Perception, 27, 1461-1473.
14. STÜRMER, B., ASCHERSLEBEN, G., & PRINZ, W. (2000). Correspondence effects with manual gestures and postures: A study of imitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1746-1759.
15. WALLACE, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.
16. WAPNER, S., & CIRILLO, L. (1968). Imitation of a model's hand movements: Age changes in transposition of left-right relations. Child Development, 39, 887-894.