Social Cognition
Automatic Imitation Task
Also called: imitation-inhibition task, imitation inhibition, imitative compatibility, stimulus-response compatibility task with hands, finger-lifting task
Measure how seeing a finger move primes the same movement: people lift the finger a number asks for while a drawn hand lifts the same finger or the other one.
10-12 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 131
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 1
What it measures
Measures how seeing a finger move primes the same movement. Participants hold down two keys with the right index and middle fingers and lift the finger a number asks for, while a drawn hand lifts the same finger or the other one. The drawn hand is a left hand on half of the trials and its mirror image on the rest, which separates copying the finger from responding on the same side.
Constructs
- Automatic imitation
- Self-other control
- Stimulus-response compatibility
Research uses
- Social cognition and imitation research
- Imitation studies across development and in clinical groups, including autism, read at the group level
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The Automatic Imitation Task measures how seeing a finger move primes the same movement (Brass and colleagues, 2000; review by Heyes, 2011). Participants hold down G with the right index finger and H with the right middle finger and lift the finger a number asks for: 1 the index finger, 2 the middle finger. At the moment the number appears, a hand drawn by our code lifts its index or middle finger. Responses are usually faster and more accurate when the drawn hand lifts the same finger, although the hand plays no part in the task (Cracco and colleagues, 2018).
More about the paradigm
In the usual version the drawn hand is a left hand seen as if across the table, so the finger that lifts is also on the side of the participant's own finger, and part of the effect can be plain side-to-side compatibility. This task shows the left hand on half of the trials and its mirror image, a right hand, on the rest, as in Experiment 3 of Westfal, Cracco, Crusius and Genschow (2025) and in Catmur and Heyes (2011). With the right hand the two kinds of compatibility conflict, so imitative and spatial compatibility come out as separate scores. A trial starts once both keys are down: the resting hand shows for 800, 1,600 or 2,400 ms, then the finger lifts and the number appears together, and the trial ends when a finger lifts or after 2,000 ms. A key let go before the number is counted, and the trial waits for both keys again. The standard session runs 8 practice trials with feedback, then 160 trials with a short rest every 40, about 10 to 12 minutes; researchers can set 80 to 240. Desktop and laptop only, with a physical keyboard, and the right hand only.
The main score is imitative compatibility: the median correct response time when the drawn hand lifts the other finger minus the same finger, averaged over the trials with its finger on the same side as the answer and on the other side, in ms. Spatial compatibility, the effect with each hand, the same differences in errors, accuracy and response times are also reported. In Westfal and colleagues' online Experiment 3 the imitative difference was about 14 ms and the spatial difference about 34 ms. These differences are small and one person's value is noisy: test-retest reliability of this difference score was low across two sessions (Pennington and colleagues, 2025), so read the effects across a group. Robotic finger movements were imitated less than human ones (Westfal and colleagues, Experiment 4), and a drawn hand may also give smaller effects than the photographs of most studies. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Imitative Compatibilityms
- Median correct response time when the drawn hand lifts the other finger minus the same finger, averaged over the trials with its finger on the same side as the answer and on the other side.
- Positive is automatic imitation; not better or worse
- Spatial Compatibilityms
- Median correct response time when the drawn finger lifts on the other side from the answer minus the same side, averaged over the same and the other finger.
- Positive is the usual finding; not better or worse
- Effect With the Left Handms
- Other finger minus same finger with the drawn left hand, where both kinds of compatibility agree: the effect most studies report.
- Usually the largest of the effects
- Effect With the Right Handms
- Other finger minus same finger with the drawn right hand, where the two kinds of compatibility conflict.
- Smaller, and can be negative
- Median RT, Same Fingerms
- Median correct response time when the drawn hand lifts the finger the number asks for, both hands together.
- Lower is faster
- Median RT, Other Fingerms
- Median correct response time when the drawn hand lifts the other finger, both hands together.
- Lower is faster
- Imitative Error Effect%
- Share of answers with the wrong finger when the drawn hand lifts the other finger minus the same finger, averaged over the two sides.
- Positive is automatic imitation in errors
- Spatial Error Effect%
- The same difference between the drawn finger on the other side and the same side.
- Informational
- Accuracy%
- Share of trials on which the finger the number asked for lifted in time.
- Higher is better
- Median Response Timems
- Median correct response time over all trials.
- Lower is faster
- Anticipationscount
- Fingers lifted under 100 ms after the number, which are not scored.
- Lower is better
- Omissionscount
- Trials with no finger lifted within 2,000 ms.
- Lower is better
- Early Releasescount
- Keys let go before the number appeared, after which the trial waited for both keys again.
- Informational
- Completed Trialstrials
- Trials answered in the scored run.
- Informational
- Total Trialstrials
- Trials in the scored run.
- Informational
Use and evidence
131 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 19% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 183 of 495 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 25 |
| 2024 | 30 |
| 2023 | 24 |
| 2022 | 24 |
| 2021 | 28 |
| 2020 | 22 |
| 2019 | 24 |
| 2018 | 27 |
| 2017 | 19 |
| 2016 | 18 |
| 2015 | 21 |
| 2014 | 11 |
| 2013 | 10 |
| 2012 | 19 |
| 2011 | 10 |
| 2010 | 16 |
| 2009 | 7 |
| 2008 | 11 |
| 2007 | 10 |
| 2006 | 5 |
| 2005 | 3 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 1 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 1
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 15
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 1
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Keys
- The right index finger holds down G and the middle finger H. A trial starts once both keys are down; the answer is the key let go.
- Display
- A hand drawn by our code, palm down with its fingers toward the participant, and a white square just past its fingertips, halfway between the index and middle fingers.
- Trial
- The resting hand for 800, 1,600 or 2,400 ms, then on one screen frame the hand lifts its index or middle finger and the number 1 or 2 takes the square's place, until a finger lifts or 2,000 ms.
- Answer
- 1: lift the index finger off G. 2: lift the middle finger off H. A key let go before the number is counted, and the trial waits for both keys again.
- Hands
- A left hand, whose index finger lifts on the side of the participant's index finger, on half of the trials, and its mirror image, a right hand, on the rest, so imitative and spatial compatibility are crossed.
- Trial mix
- Each of the 8 combinations of hand, number and lifted finger equally often in a seeded order: 160 trials (standard; 80 to 240), with a rest every 40, and 1,000 ms between trials.
- Practice
- 8 trials, each combination once, with feedback for 1,000 ms.
- Score
- Median correct response time when the hand lifts the other finger minus the same finger, averaged over the trials with its finger on the same side as the answer and on the other side, in ms. Answers under 100 ms leave the score.
The imitative and spatial differences are small, and one person's difference is noisy: read them across a group. The hand is a drawing, not a photograph or video. The task uses the right hand only and needs a physical keyboard that can hold two keys down.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: automatic_imitation_test from the scored run, letting go of G (index finger, for 1) or H (middle finger, for 2) within 2,000 ms of the number (chance 50%, each number on half the trials). Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One key on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Missed responses and responses under 100 ms follow the timed-test rule.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). Missed responses and responses under 100 ms keep the platform's timed-test rule: more than max(3, 25%) missed responses or more than max(2, 20%) responses under 100 ms invalidate, and any is flagged. A response under 100 ms cannot be a reaction to the stimulus.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Trials | 160 | 80 to 240 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Automatic Imitation Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Brass M, Bekkering H, Wohlschläger A, Prinz W, 2000), with the standard settings (trials: 160). The main score was imitative compatibility (median correct response time when the drawn hand lifts the other finger minus the same finger, averaged over the trials with its finger on the same side as the answer and on the other side).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44(2), 124-143. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.2000.1225The task: lift the index or middle finger for a number while a hand lifts the same finger or the other one.
- Westfal, M., Cracco, E., Crusius, J., & Genschow, O. (2025). Validation of an online imitation-inhibition task. Behavior Research Methods, 57, 80. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02557-3The online version with keys G and H held down and let go, 2,000 ms to answer, and left hands with their mirror images: about 14 ms of imitative and 34 ms of spatial compatibility.
- Catmur, C., & Heyes, C. (2011). Time course analyses confirm independence of imitative and spatial compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019325Left and right hands to separate imitative from spatial compatibility; the imitative effect remained.
- Cracco, E., Bardi, L., Desmet, C., Genschow, O., Rigoni, D., De Coster, L., Radkova, I., Deschrijver, E., & Brass, M. (2018). Automatic imitation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(5), 453-500. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000143Meta-analysis: imitative effects remain when spatial compatibility is controlled.
- Pennington, C. R., Birch-Hurst, K., Ploszajski, M., Clark, K., Hedge, C., & Shaw, D. J. (2025). Are we capturing individual differences? Evaluating the test-retest reliability of experimental tasks used to measure social cognitive abilities. Behavior Research Methods, 57, 82. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02606-5Low test-retest reliability of the compatibility difference, so one person's value is best read within a group.
Source papers
- Brass M, Bekkering H, Wohlschläger A, Prinz W (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44(2):124-143.Paradigm source, Adults
- Westfal M, Cracco E, Crusius J, Genschow O (2025). Validation of an online imitation-inhibition task. Behavior Research Methods, 57:80.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Automatic Imitation Task take?
About 10 to 12 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Imitative Compatibility, Spatial Compatibility, Effect With the Left Hand, Effect With the Right Hand, Median RT, Same Finger, Median RT, Other Finger, Imitative Error Effect, Spatial Error Effect, Accuracy, Median Response Time, Anticipations, Omissions, Early Releases, Completed Trials and Total Trials. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Automatic Imitation Task used in research?
131 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 19% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 183 of 495 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.22.0, counted 3 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Automatic Imitation Task have?
In the published research, 1 paper reports its test-retest reliability and 1 registered clinical study uses it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Trials (80 to 240). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests