Automatic imitation is modulated by stimulus clarity but not by animacy.

Observing actions evokes an automatic imitative response that activates mechanisms required to execute these actions. Automatic imitation is measured using the Stimulus Response Compatibility (SRC) task, which presents participants with compatible and incompatible prompt-distractor pairs. Automatic imitation, or the compatibility effect, is the difference in response times (RTs) between incompatible and compatible trials. Past results suggest that an action's animacy affects automatic imitation: human-produced actions evoke larger effects than computer-generated actions. However, it appears that animacy effects occur mostly when non-human stimuli are less complex or less clear. Theoretical accounts make conflicting predictions regarding both stimulus manipulations. We conducted two SRC experiments that presented participants with an animacy manipulation (human and computer-generated stimuli, Experiment 1) and a clarity manipulation (stimuli with varying visual clarity using Gaussian blurring, Experiments 1 and 2) to tease apart effect of these manipulations. Participants in Experiment 1 responded slower for incompatible than for compatible trials, showing a compatibility effect. Experiment 1 found a null effect of animacy, but stimuli with lower visual clarity evoked smaller compatibility effects. Experiment 2 modulated clarity in five steps and reports decreasing compatibility effects for stimuli with lower clarity. Clarity, but not animacy, therefore affected automatic imitation, and theoretical implications and future directions are considered.

Automatic imitation of speech is enhanced for non-native sounds.

Simulation accounts of speech perception posit that speech is covertly imitated to support perception in a top-down manner. Behaviourally, covert imitation is measured through the stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) task. In each trial of a speech SRC task, participants produce a target speech sound whilst perceiving a speech distractor that either matches the target (compatible condition) or does not (incompatible condition). The degree to which the distractor is covertly imitated is captured by the automatic imitation effect, computed as the difference in response times (RTs) between compatible and incompatible trials. Simulation accounts disagree on whether covert imitation is enhanced when speech perception is challenging or instead when the speech signal is most familiar to the speaker. To test these accounts, we conducted three experiments in which participants completed SRC tasks with native and non-native sounds. Experiment 1 uncovered larger automatic imitation effects in an SRC task with non-native sounds than with native sounds. Experiment 2 replicated the finding online, demonstrating its robustness and the applicability of speech SRC tasks online. Experiment 3 intermixed native and non-native sounds within a single SRC task to disentangle effects of perceiving non-native sounds from confounding effects of producing non-native speech actions. This last experiment confirmed that automatic imitation is enhanced for non-native speech distractors, supporting a compensatory function of covert imitation in speech perception. The experiment also uncovered a separate effect of producing non-native speech actions on enhancing automatic imitation effects.

Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli.

Observing someone perform an action automatically activates neural substrates associated with executing that action. This covert response, or automatic imitation, is measured behaviourally using the stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) task. In an SRC task, participants are presented with compatible and incompatible response-distractor pairings (e.g., an instruction to say "ba" paired with an audio recording of "da" as an example of an incompatible trial). Automatic imitation is measured as the difference in response times (RT) or accuracy between incompatible and compatible trials. Larger automatic imitation effects have been interpreted as a larger covert imitation response. Past results suggest that an action's biological status affects automatic imitation: Human-produced manual actions show enhanced automatic imitation effects compared with computer-generated actions. Per the integrated theory for language comprehension and production, action observation triggers a simulation process to recognize and interpret observed speech actions involving covert imitation. Human-generated actions are predicted to result in increased automatic imitation because the simulation process is predicted to engage more for actions produced by a speaker who is more similar to the listener. We conducted an online SRC task that presented participants with human and computer-generated speech stimuli to test this prediction. Participants responded faster to compatible than incompatible trials, showing an overall automatic imitation effect. Yet the human-generated and computer-generated vocal stimuli evoked similar automatic imitation effects. These results suggest that computer-generated speech stimuli evoke the same covert imitative response as human stimuli, thus rejecting predictions from the integrated theory of language comprehension and production.