↓ Skip to main content

Observation and imitation of actions performed by humans, androids, and robots: an EMG study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Observation and imitation of actions performed by humans, androids, and robots: an EMG study
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00364
Pubmed ID
Authors

Galit Hofree, Burcu A. Urgen, Piotr Winkielman, Ayse P. Saygin

Abstract

Understanding others' actions is essential for functioning in the physical and social world. In the past two decades research has shown that action perception involves the motor system, supporting theories that we understand others' behavior via embodied motor simulation. Recently, empirical approach to action perception has been facilitated by using well-controlled artificial stimuli, such as robots. One broad question this approach can address is what aspects of similarity between the observer and the observed agent facilitate motor simulation. Since humans have evolved among other humans and animals, using artificial stimuli such as robots allows us to probe whether our social perceptual systems are specifically tuned to process other biological entities. In this study, we used humanoid robots with different degrees of human-likeness in appearance and motion along with electromyography (EMG) to measure muscle activity in participants' arms while they either observed or imitated videos of three agents produce actions with their right arm. The agents were a Human (biological appearance and motion), a Robot (mechanical appearance and motion), and an Android (biological appearance and mechanical motion). Right arm muscle activity increased when participants imitated all agents. Increased muscle activation was found also in the stationary arm both during imitation and observation. Furthermore, muscle activity was sensitive to motion dynamics: activity was significantly stronger for imitation of the human than both mechanical agents. There was also a relationship between the dynamics of the muscle activity and motion dynamics in stimuli. Overall our data indicate that motor simulation is not limited to observation and imitation of agents with a biological appearance, but is also found for robots. However we also found sensitivity to human motion in the EMG responses. Combining data from multiple methods allows us to obtain a more complete picture of action understanding and the underlying neural computations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 114 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 20%
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 32 28%
Neuroscience 11 9%
Computer Science 10 9%
Engineering 9 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 27 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 28 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,933,617
of 24,980,180 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,383
of 7,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,654
of 270,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#35
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,980,180 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,592 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 270,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.