↓ Skip to main content

Understanding and Imitating Unfamiliar Actions: Distinct Underlying Mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understanding and Imitating Unfamiliar Actions: Distinct Underlying Mechanisms
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0046939
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joana C. Carmo, Raffaella I. Rumiati, Antonino Vallesi

Abstract

The human "mirror neuron system" has been proposed to be the neural substrate that underlies understanding and, possibly, imitating actions. However, since the brain activity with mirror properties seems insufficient to provide a good description for imitation of actions outside one's own repertoire, the existence of supplementary processes has been proposed. Moreover, it is unclear whether action observation requires the same neural mechanisms as the explicit access to their meaning. The aim of this study was two-fold as we investigated whether action observation requires different processes depending on 1) whether the ultimate goal is to imitate or understand the presented actions and 2) whether the to-be-imitated actions are familiar or unfamiliar to the subject. Participants were presented with both meaningful familiar actions and meaningless unfamiliar actions that they had to either imitate or discriminate later. Event-related Potentials were used as differences in brain activity could have been masked by the use of other techniques with lower temporal resolution. In the imitation task, a sustained left frontal negativity was more pronounced for meaningless actions than for meaningful ones, starting from an early time-window. Conversely, observing unfamiliar versus familiar actions with the intention of discriminating them led to marked differences over right centro-posterior scalp regions, in both middle and latest time-windows. These findings suggest that action imitation and action understanding may be sustained by dissociable mechanisms: while imitation of unfamiliar actions activates left frontal processes, that are likely to be related to learning mechanisms, action understanding involves dedicated operations which probably require right posterior regions, consistent with their involvement in social interactions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 4%
United States 2 3%
Japan 1 1%
Luxembourg 1 1%
Unknown 66 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 26%
Researcher 10 14%
Lecturer 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 38%
Neuroscience 9 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 13 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2021.
All research outputs
#14,049,049
of 23,791,297 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#115,674
of 203,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,420
of 174,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,254
of 4,569 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,791,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 203,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 174,244 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,569 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.