Cargando…

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 compatibl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilt, Hannah, Wu, Yuchunzi, Trotter, Antony, Adank, Patti
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10264473/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36443535
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02218-6
_version_ 1785058330536837120
author Wilt, Hannah
Wu, Yuchunzi
Trotter, Antony
Adank, Patti
author_facet Wilt, Hannah
Wu, Yuchunzi
Trotter, Antony
Adank, Patti
author_sort Wilt, Hannah
collection PubMed
description 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13423-022-02218-6.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10264473
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102644732023-06-15 Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli Wilt, Hannah Wu, Yuchunzi Trotter, Antony Adank, Patti Psychon Bull Rev Brief Report 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13423-022-02218-6. Springer US 2022-11-28 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10264473/ /pubmed/36443535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02218-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Brief Report
Wilt, Hannah
Wu, Yuchunzi
Trotter, Antony
Adank, Patti
Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli
title Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli
title_full Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli
title_fullStr Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli
title_full_unstemmed Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli
title_short Automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli
title_sort automatic imitation of human and computer-generated vocal stimuli
topic Brief Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10264473/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36443535
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02218-6
work_keys_str_mv AT wilthannah automaticimitationofhumanandcomputergeneratedvocalstimuli
AT wuyuchunzi automaticimitationofhumanandcomputergeneratedvocalstimuli
AT trotterantony automaticimitationofhumanandcomputergeneratedvocalstimuli
AT adankpatti automaticimitationofhumanandcomputergeneratedvocalstimuli