Social Mimicry Enhances Mu-Suppression During Action Observation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During social interactions, there is a tendency for people to mimic the gestures and mannerisms of others, which increases liking and rapport. Psychologists have extensively studied the antecedents and consequences of mimicry at the social level, but the neural basis of this behavior remains unclear. Many researchers have speculated that mimicry is related to activity in the human mirror system (HMS), a network of parietofrontal regions that are involved in both action execution and observation. However, activity of the HMS during reciprocal social interactions involving mimicry has not been demonstrated. Here, we took an electroencephalographic (EEG) index of mirror activity-mu-suppression during action observation-in a pretest/post-test design with 1 of 3 intervening treatments: 1) social interaction in which the participant was mimicked, 2) social interaction without mimicry, or 3) an innocuous computer task, not involving another human agent. The change in mu-suppression from pre- to post-test varied as a function of the intervening treatment, with participants who had been mimicked showing an increase in mu-suppression during the post-treatment action observation session. We propose that this specific modulation of HMS activity as a function of mimicry constitutes the first direct evidence for mirror system involvement in real social mimicry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".