Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10264473 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02218-6 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!