↓ Skip to main content

Vicarious motor activation during action perception: beyond correlational evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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
Vicarious motor activation during action perception: beyond correlational evidence
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alessio Avenanti, Matteo Candidi, Cosimo Urgesi

Abstract

Neurophysiological and imaging studies have shown that seeing the actions of other individuals brings about the vicarious activation of motor regions involved in performing the same actions. While this suggests a simulative mechanism mediating the perception of others' actions, one cannot use such evidence to make inferences about the functional significance of vicarious activations. Indeed, a central aim in social neuroscience is to comprehend how vicarious activations allow the understanding of other people's behavior, and this requires to use stimulation or lesion methods to establish causal links from brain activity to cognitive functions. In the present work, we review studies investigating the effects of transient manipulations of brain activity or stable lesions in the motor system on individuals' ability to perceive and understand the actions of others. We conclude there is now compelling evidence that neural activity in the motor system is critical for such cognitive ability. More research using causal methods, however, is needed in order to disclose the limits and the conditions under which vicarious activations are required to perceive and understand actions of others as well as their emotions and somatic feelings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 180 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 25%
Researcher 36 19%
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 24 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 70 37%
Neuroscience 30 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 4%
Engineering 5 3%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 40 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 May 2013.
All research outputs
#12,585,070
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,430
of 7,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,836
of 280,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#480
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 280,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.