@article{SpringerBrandstaedterLiepeltetal.2011,
  author    = {Springer, Anne and Brandst{\"a}dter, Simone and Liepelt, Roman and Birngruber, Teresa and Giese, Martin and Mechsner, Franz and Prinz, Wolfgang},
  title     = {Motor execution affects action prediction},
  series = {Brain and cognition : a journal of experimental and clinical research},
  volume    = {76},
  journal   = {Brain and cognition : a journal of experimental and clinical research},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {San Diego},
  issn      = {0278-2626},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.bandc.2011.03.007},
  pages     = {26 -- 36},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {Previous studies provided evidence of the claim that the prediction of occluded action involves real-time simulation. We report two experiments that aimed to study how real-time simulation is affected by simultaneous action execution under conditions of full, partial or no overlap between observed and executed actions. This overlap was analysed by comparing the body sides and the movement kinematics involved in the observed and the executed action. While performing actions, participants observed point-light (PL) actions that were interrupted by an occluder, followed by a test pose. The task was to judge whether the test pose depicted a continuation of the occluded action in the same depth angle. Using a paradigm proposed by Graf et al., we independently manipulated the duration of the occluder and the temporal advance of the test pose relative to occlusion onset (occluder time and pose time, respectively). This paradigm allows the assessment of real-time simulation, based on prediction performance across different occluder time/pose time combinations (i.e., improved task performance with decreasing time distance between occluder time and pose time is taken to reflect real-time simulation). The PL actor could be perceived as from the front or back, as indicated by task instructions. In Experiment 1 (front view instructions), evidence of action simulation was obtained for partial overlap (i.e., observed and performed action corresponded either in body side or movement kinematics), but not for full or no overlap conditions. The same pattern was obtained in Experiment 2 (back view instructions), ruling out a spatial compatibility explanation for the real-time pattern observed. Our results suggest that motor processes affect action prediction and real-time simulation. The strength of their impact varies as a function of the overlap between observed and executed actions.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SparenbergTopolinskiSpringeretal.2012,
  author    = {Sparenberg, Peggy and Topolinski, Sascha and Springer, Anne and Prinz, Wolfgang},
  title     = {Minimal mimicry: Mere effector matching induces preference},
  series = {Brain and cognition : a journal of experimental and clinical research},
  volume    = {80},
  journal   = {Brain and cognition : a journal of experimental and clinical research},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {San Diego},
  issn      = {0278-2626},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.bandc.2012.08.004},
  pages     = {291 -- 300},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Both mimicking and being mimicked induces preference for a target. The present experiments investigate the minimal sufficient conditions for this mimicry-preference link to occur. We argue that mere effector matching between one's own and the other person's movement is sufficient to induce preference, independent of which movement is actually performed. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants moved either their arms or legs, and watched avatars that moved either their arms or legs, respectively, without any instructions to mimic. The executed movements themselves and their pace were completely different between participants (fast circular movements) and targets (slow linear movements). Participants preferred avatars that moved the same body part as they did over avatars that moved a different body part. In Experiment 3, using human targets and differently paced movements, movement similarity was manipulated in addition to effector overlap (moving forward-backward or sideways with arms or legs, respectively). Only effector matching, but not movement matching, influenced preference ratings. These findings suggest that mere effector overlap is sufficient to trigger preference by mimicry. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}