Ghent University, Belgium.
Ghent University, Belgium.
Conscious Cogn. 2019 Feb;68:115-118. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2019.01.001. Epub 2019 Jan 10.
In his review, Ramsey (2018) argues that it is currently unclear what reaction time indices of automatic imitation measure due to lacking research on their validity and domain-specificity. In our commentary, we argue that this conclusion is based on two misconceptions, namely that automatic imitation was designed as a laboratory measure of motor mimicry and that psychometric approaches to validity can readily be applied to experimental settings. We then show that reaction time indices of automatic imitation measure covert imitative response tendencies. Furthermore, while irrelevant for their validity, we argue that these indices are associated with some, but not necessarily all, types of overt imitation. Finally, we argue that mapping out the brain networks does not suffice to understand the brain processes underlying imitative control.
在他的评论中,拉姆齐(2018 年)认为,由于缺乏对其有效性和领域特异性的研究,目前尚不清楚自动模仿的反应时指标测量的是什么。在我们的评论中,我们认为这个结论基于两个误解,即自动模仿是作为实验室测量运动模仿而设计的,以及心理测量学方法可以很容易地应用于实验环境。然后,我们表明,自动模仿的反应时指标测量的是隐蔽的模仿反应倾向。此外,尽管与它们的有效性无关,但我们认为这些指标与某些但不一定是所有类型的外显模仿相关。最后,我们认为,映射大脑网络不足以理解模仿控制背后的大脑过程。