Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:00:25.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flexibility and development of mirroring mechanisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2008

Matthew R. Longo  and
Bennett I. Bertenthal
Matthew R. Longo
Affiliation:
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and Department of Psychology, University College London, London WC1N 3AR, United Kingdom
Bennett I. Bertenthal
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, College of Arts and Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. [email protected]@indiana.eduhttp://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~ucjtml0/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The empirical support for the shared circuits model (SCM) is mixed. We review recent results from our own lab and others supporting a central claim of SCM that mirroring occurs at multiple levels of representation. By contrast, the model is silent as to why human infants are capable of showing imitative behaviours mediated by a mirror system. This limitation is a problem with formal models that address neither the neural correlates nor the behavioural evidence directly.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bertenthal, B. I., Longo, M. R. & Kosobud, A. (2006) Imitative response tendencies following observation of intransitive actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32:210–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Bruner, J. S. (1969) Eye, hand, and mind. In: Studies in cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jean Piaget, ed. Elkind, D. & Flavell, J. H., pp. 223–35. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Calvo-Merino, B., Glaser, D. E., Grèzes, J., Passingham, R. E. & Haggard, P. (2005) Action observation and acquired motor skills: An fMRI study with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex 15:1243–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chartrand, T. & Bargh, J. (1999) The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:893–910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrari, P. F., Visalberghi, E., Paukner, A., Fogassi, L., Ruggiero, A. & Suomi, S. J. (2006) Neonatal imitation in rhesus macaques. PLoS Biology 4:e302. (Online journal.)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longo, M. R. & Bertenthal, B. I. (2006) Common coding of observation and execution of action in 9-month-old infants. Infancy 10:43–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longo, M. R., Kosobud, A. & Bertenthal, B. I. (in press) Automatic imitation of biomechanically possible and impossible actions: Effects of priming movements vs. goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.Google Scholar
Myowa-Yamakoshi, M., Tomonaga, M., Tanaka, M. & Matsuzawa, T. (2004) Imitation in neonatal chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Developmental Science 7:437–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L. & Gallese, V. (2002) From mirror neurons to imitation: Facts and speculations. In: The imitative mind: Development, evolution and brain bases, ed. Meltzoff, A. & Prinz, W., pp. 247–66. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerville, J. A., Woodward, A. L. & Needham, A. (2005) Action experience alters 3-month-old infants' perception of others' actions. Cognition 96:B1–B11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stengel, E. (1947) A clinical and psychological study of echo-reactions. Journal of Mental Science 93:598–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed