Methodological problems undermine tests of the ideo-motor conjecture

Abstract

Recent behavioural research has investigated whether viewing someone perform an action results in activation of that action by the observer. Postulated empirical support for this ‘ideo-motor (IM) conjecture’ typically rests upon two types of experimental paradigm (reaction time and movement tracking tasks). These paradigms purport to show movement facilitation when compatible movements are observed and vice versa, but only for biological stimuli. Unfortunately, these paradigms often contain confounding (and unavoidable) generic stimulus–response compatibility effects that are not restricted to observed human movement. The current study demonstrates in three experiments that equivalent compatibility effects can be produced by non-biological stimuli. These results suggest that existing empirical paradigms may not, and perhaps cannot, support the IM-conjecture.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    At the suggestion of a reviewer, we checked to see whether the order had any effect on the results. There was neither a main effect nor any interactions involving order (all P > 0.65) suggesting that the analysis reported below was not influenced by the order manipulation.

References

  1. Aicken MD, Wilson AD, Williams JHG, Mon-Williams M (2007) Methodological issues in measures of imitative reaction times. Brain Cogn 63:304–308

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brass M, Heyes C (2005) Imitation: is cognitive neuroscience solving the correspondence problem. Trends Cogn Sci 9:489–495

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brass M, Bekkering H, Prinz W (2001) Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychol 106:3–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen RG, Rosenbaum DA (2004) Where grasps are made reveals how grasps are planned: generation and recall of motor plans. Exp Brain Res 157:486–495

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. De Jong R (1995) Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task incertainty. Acta Psychol 88:187–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fitts PM, Seeger CM (1953) S-R compatibility: spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. J Exp Psychol 46:199–210

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gallese V, Goldman A (1998) Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends Cogn Sci 12:493–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gibson JJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: Shaw RE, Bransford J (eds) Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hommel B (1996) S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Q J Exp Psychol 49(3):546–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Iacoboni M, Koski LM, Brass M, Bekkering H, Woods RP, Dubeau MC, Mazziotta JC, Rizzolatti G (2001) Reafferent copies of imitated actions in the right superior temporal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:13995–13999

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. James W (1890) The principles of psychology. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kilner JM, Paulignan Y, Blakemore SJ (2003) An interference effect of observed biological movement on action. Curr Biol 13:522–525

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Miall CR, Imamizu H, Miyauchi S (2000) Activation of the cerebellum in co-ordinated eye and hand tracking movements: an fMRI study. Exp Brain Res 135:1432–11106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Meltzoff AN, Decety J (2003) What imitation tells us about social cognition: a rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 358:491–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Press C, Bird G, Flach R, Heyes C (2005) Robotic movement elicits automatic imitation. Cogn Brain Res 25:632–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ratcliff R (1979) Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychol Bull 86:446–461

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rizzolatti G (2005) The mirror neuron system and its function in humans. Anat Embryol 210:419–421

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V (2001) Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nat Rev Neurosci 2:661–670

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W (2003) Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own? Cognition 88:B11–B21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shaffer LH (1965) Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. J Exp Psychol 70:284–288

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sommerville JA, Decety J (2006) Weaving the fabric of social interaction: articulating developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience in the domain of motor cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 13(2):179–200

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stock A, Stock C (2004) A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychol Res 68:176–188

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stoffels EJ (1996) On stage robustness and response selection: further evidence. Acta Psychol 91:67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. van Donkelaar P, Lee RG, Gellman RS (1994) The contribution of retinal and extraretinal signals to manual tracking movements. Exp Brain Res 99:155–163

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vu KPL, Proctor RW (2004) Mixing compatible and incompatible mappings: elimination, reduction, and enhancement of spatial compatibility effects. Q J Exp Psychol A: Hum Exp Psychol 57:539–556

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wilson M, Knoblich G (2005) The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychol Bull 131(3):460–473

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams JHG, Whiten A, Waiter GD, Pechey S, Perrett DI (2007) Cortical and subcortical mechanisms at the core of imitation. Soc Neuro 2(1):66–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wolpert D, Ghahramani Z, Flanagan R (2001) Perspectives and problems in motor learning. Trends Cogn Sci 5:487–494

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew D. Wilson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jansson, E., Wilson, A.D., Williams, J.H.G. et al. Methodological problems undermine tests of the ideo-motor conjecture. Exp Brain Res 182, 549–558 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1013-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ideo-motor theory
  • Stimulus–response compatibility