Causes and consequences of imitation.

By Cecilia Heyes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2001

635 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b4369d29b5eeca8731d511cd16dc81b1cc0bb41d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

1 Imitation and Other Minds: The "Like Me" Hypothesis (2005, result): “…between the person and device is not attributable simply to infants being inhibited in the case of the inanimate device (as speculated by Heyes, 2001) because: (1) infants imitated the device when it performed the action successfully and (2) 100% of the infants approached and picked up…”
Mechanisms of social cognition. (2012, background): “Although there is still some controversy about the role of this mechanism as a facilitator or a product of imitation (Heyes 2001), the discovery of mirror neurons has had a major impact on our understanding of the nature and role of imitation.”
Social attitudes modulate automatic imitation (2010, background): “The associative sequence learning model (Brass & Heyes, 2005; Heyes, 2001; Heyes, 2003; Heyes & Ray, 2000) suggests that mimicry is mediated by low-level mechanisms in which activation of a sensory representation of a body movement (e.”
Neural mechanisms of imitation. (2005, background): “First, given the overlap between the areas activated by imitation tasks and classical areas of language (an overlap that supports the hypothesis that mirror neurons might be important neural elements in the evolution of language [17]), is the activation of classical language areas during imitation e”
Where do mirror neurons come from? (2010, background): “Heyes / Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 2 G Model”
The Observation and Execution of Actions Share Motor and Somatosensory Voxels in all Tested Subjects: Single-Subject Analyses of Unsmoothed fMRI Data (2008, background): “Recently, we have argued that shared circuits for hand actions could be the result of Hebbian associations trained during motor execution (DelGiudice et al. forthcoming; Keysers and Perrett 2004), (see Heyes 2001; Catmur et al. 2007) for a related account).”
ALE meta-analysis of action observation and imitation in the human brain (2010, positive): “The action imitation network as revealed by the present metaanalysis recruited frontal, parietal, and temporo-occipital areas as previously assumed in qualitative reviews (e.g., Brass and Heyes, 2005; Heyes, 2001; Iacoboni, 2005, 2009; Turella et al., 2009a,b).”
Incremental learning of gestures by imitation in a humanoid robot (2007, background): “Ray’s Associative Sequence Learning (ASL) mechanism [12, 11] suggests that imitation requires a vertical association between a model’s action, as viewed from the imitator’s point of view, and the corresponding imitator’s action.”
Testing for imitative and nonimitative social learning in the budgerigar using a two-object/two-action test (2002, positive): “Evidence of motor imitation, defined as copying by an observer of a novel feature of the body movement of a demonstrator (Heyes 2001), has been found in pigeons, Columbia livia (Zentall et al. 1996; Kaiser et al. 1997), Japanese quail, Coturnix japonica (Akins & Zentall 1996, 1998; Dorrance &…”
The role of prediction in social neuroscience (2012, background): “Another alternative account of the mirror system is based on associative learning (Heyes and Ray, 2000; Heyes, 2001), and argues that learned sensorimotor experiences, from self-observation and the observation of others, actually promote the formation and emergence of a mirror system, which is…”
The interactive brain hypothesis (2012, background): “The co-variation of perception and action in the social realm is regulated by at least two autonomous agents, and so mastering the sensorimotor laws involved is likely to require more flexibility than in the case of inanimate objects.”
The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. (2005, background): “The original finding has been criticized, in part, on the grounds that the data could be explained by innate releasing mechanisms (see Heyes, 2001, for a review).”