Higher or lower? Interpersonal behavioral and neural synchronization of movement imitation in autistic children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How well autistic children can imitate movements and how their brain activity synchronizes with the person they are imitating have been understudied. The current study adopted functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) hyperscanning and employed a task involving real interactions involving meaningful and meaningless movement imitation to explore the fundamental nature of imitation as a dynamic and interactive process. Experiment 1 explored meaningful and meaningless gesture imitation. The results revealed that autistic children exhibited lower imitation accuracy and behavioral synchrony than non-autistic children when imitating both meaningful and meaningless gestures. Specifically, compared to non-autistic children, autistic children displayed significantly higher interpersonal neural synchronization (INS) in the right inferior parietal lobule (r-IPL) (channel 12) when imitating meaningful gestures but lower INS when imitating meaningless gestures. Experiment 2 further investigated the imitation of four types of meaningless movements (orofacial movements, transitive movements, limb movements, and gestures). The results revealed that across all four movement types, autistic children exhibited significantly lower imitation accuracy, behavioral synchrony, and INS in the r-IPL (channel 12) than non-autistic children. This study is the first to identify INS as a biomarker of movement imitation difficulties in autistic individuals. Furthermore, an intra- and interindividual imitation mechanism model was proposed to explain the underlying causes of movement imitation difficulties in autistic individuals.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".