Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Dec 7;274(1628):3027-31.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1019.

Intact automatic imitation of human and robot actions in autism spectrum disorders

Geoffrey Bird  1 , Jane Leighton, Clare Press, Cecilia Heyes
Affiliations

Intact automatic imitation of human and robot actions in autism spectrum disorders

Geoffrey Bird et al. Proc Biol Sci. .

Abstract

The existence of a specialized imitation module in humans is hotly debated. Studies suggesting a specific imitation impairment in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) support a modular view. However, the voluntary imitation tasks used in these studies (which require socio-cognitive abilities in addition to imitation for successful performance) cannot support claims of a specific impairment. Accordingly, an automatic imitation paradigm (a 'cleaner' measure of imitative ability) was used to assess the imitative ability of 16 adults with ASD and 16 non-autistic matched control participants. Participants performed a prespecified hand action in response to observed hand actions performed either by a human or a robotic hand. On compatible trials the stimulus and response actions matched, while on incompatible trials the two actions did not match. Replicating previous findings, the Control group showed an automatic imitation effect: responses on compatible trials were faster than those on incompatible trials. This effect was greater when responses were made to human than to robotic actions ('animacy bias'). The ASD group also showed an automatic imitation effect and a larger animacy bias than the Control group. We discuss these findings with reference to the literature on imitation in ASD and theories of imitation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(i) Warning stimuli and (ii, iii) opening and closing stimuli for the (a) human and (b) robot stimulus types.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean RT on compatible (grey bars) and incompatible (black bars) trials in response to human and robotic stimuli in both the ASD and Control groups. Error bars indicate s.e.m. Numbers refer to the difference in RT between compatible and incompatible trials (‘automatic imitation effect’) for each condition and group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Association; Washington, DC: 1994. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.
    1. Avikainen S, Kulomaki T, Hari R. Normal movement reading in Asperger subjects. Neuroreport. 1999;10:3467–3470. doi:10.1097/00001756-199911260-00001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bird G, Catmur C, Silani G, Frith C, Frith U. Attention does not modulate neural responses to social stimuli in autism spectrum disorders. Neuroimage. 2006;31:1614–1624. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.02.037 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brass M, Heyes C.M. Imitation: is cognitive neuroscience solving the correspondence problem? Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005;9:489–495. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brass M, Derrfuss J, Matthes-von Cramon G, von Cramon D.Y. Imitative response tendencies in patients with frontal brain lesions. Neuropsychology. 2003;17:265–271. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.17.2.265 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types