See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269154992

Advertising Memory: The Power of Mirror Neurons

Article  in  Journal of Neuroscience Psychology and Economics · August 2014

DOI: 10.1037/npe0000025

CITATIONS READS
4 1,943

2 authors:

Sophie Lacoste-Badie Olivier Droulers

University of Lille (France) Université de Rennes 1
44 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS    87 PUBLICATIONS   203 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IMAJ ; 2015-2018 View project

ASAFE; 2017-2020 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sophie Lacoste-Badie on 06 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics © 2014 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 7, No. 4, 195–202 1937-321X/14/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/npe0000025

Advertising Memory: The Power of Mirror Neurons

Sophie Lacoste-Badie and Olivier Droulers
University of Rennes

As part of the insights of neuroscience available for the study of advertising, the concept of
mirror neurons provides opportunities for new research. Mirror neurons are a particular
class of visuomotor neurons in the brain that show activity both when an individual
performs an action and when he observes another individual performing the same action.
According to researchers in cognitive neuroscience, mirror neurons are the brain basis for
learning by imitation. The observation of 2 types of movement specifically causes the
mirror neurons activation: “grasping with the hand” and “bringing to the mouth.” This
article seeks to show that TV commercials, in which a character grabs a food product and
brings it to his mouth, are more effective. To investigate this research question we designed
a between-subjects experiment (n ⫽ 130) to compare the memorization of 2 versions of the
same ad (featuring an unfamiliar mineral water brand). In the first ad version, the character
grabs the product, while there is no contact between the product and the character in the
second version. The article outlines that memory was higher in the grasping and drinking
condition. Although we cannot conclusively say that the mirror neurons were activated
when people saw the character grabbing the product in the ad, the literature on mirror
neurons provides an explanatory framework for the observed results. In other words, this
study points out that the discovery of mirror neurons is a very new concept for marketing,
which can enrich our understanding of advertising processing.

Keywords: advertising, character, hand, memorization, mirror neurons

For many researchers, one of the biggest ad-
vances in neuroscience in recent years is certainly
the discovery of mirror neurons. In this regard,
Ramachandran (Director of the Center for Brain
and Cognition, University of California, San Di-
ego) predicts that “mirror neurons will do for
psychology what DNA did for biology” (Ram-
achandran, 2000). Mirror neurons are a particular
class of visuomotor neurons in the brain that show
activity both when an individual performs an ac-
tion and when he observes another individual per-
forming the same action.
From a marketing perspective, the study of mir-
ror neurons can enrich our understanding of con-
This article was published Online First September 22,
2014.
Sophie Lacoste-Badie and Olivier Droulers, CNRS
(UMR 6211) CREM - Center for Research in Economics
and Management, University of Rennes, Graduate School of
Management (IGR).
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Sophie Lacoste-Badie, CNRS (UMR 6211)
CREM - Center for Research in Economics and Manage-
ment, University of Rennes 1, Institute of Technology (IUT
GEA), Campus de Beaulieu, Avenue du général Leclerc -
CS 44202, 35042 Rennes CEDEX, France. E-mail: sophie
.lacoste-badie@univ-rennes1.fr
195
sumer behavior (Bagozzi et al., 2012; Dijksterhuis
et al., 2005; Janiszewski & Wyer, 2014). Since
Weber (2007) discussed their implication for mar-
keting practices (e.g., in the domains of new prod-
uct launch, creative strategy for advertising, sales
promotion strategies, personal selling strategies)
and underlined that “mirror neurons allow the
consumer to learn vicariously in a passive envi-
ronment, which is an ideal scenario as it represents
most situations in which the consumer is exposed
to a marketing message,” surprisingly very few
research have been conducted in the field of ad-
vertising.
In this article we propose to import knowledge
from mirror neurons in the field of advertising and
test the influence of the product grabbing process
performed by the ad main character. In other
words, we want to see whether having the main
character in an ad grabbing a product and bringing
it to his mouth (for consumption) does improve
the ad learning by the viewer.
Literature Review
Mirror neurons were originally discovered in
the inferior frontal gyrus (F5 area) and inferior
parietal lobule of the macaque monkey
196 LACOSTE-BADIE AND DROULERS
(Macaca nemestrina) (Di Pellegrino et al.,
1992; Gallese et al., 1996; Rizzolatti et al.,
1996). Recently Kilner et al. (2009), then Mu-
kamel et al. (2010) demonstrated their existence
in the human brain. When an individual ob-
serves the actions of another individual, con-
stantly active areas are the anterior portion of
the inferior parietal lobule (IPL; BA 40 area),
the ventral premotor cortex, and the posterior
area of the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG; BA 44
area; considered as homologous human of mon-
key area F5). Human mirror system presents a
somatotopic organization: observation of motor
acts performed by others with their leg, hand,
and mouth activates the IFG in a medial to
lateral direction, as in the classical homunculus
of Penfield and Rasmussen (1950). In IPL,
mouth motor acts are represented rostrally,
hand/arm motor acts caudally, and leg motor
acts even more caudally, and dorsally extending
into the superior parietal lobule (Rizzolatti &
Fabbri-Destro, 2010).
From Understanding Actions . . .
The attribute of mirror neurons has been first
to allow immediate recognition and understand-
ing of others’ actions through the congruence
between motor and perceptual properties of mir-
ror neurons: “we understand actions when we
map the visual representation of the observed
action onto our motor representation of the
same action. According to this view, an action is
understood when its observation causes the mo-
tor system of the observer to ‘resonate’” (Riz-
zolatti et al., 2001). Thereby, for example when
the observer sees someone grabbing a cup of
tea, the same population of neurons involved in
execution of grasping movements becomes ac-
tive in the observer’s motor areas.
Moreover, researchers found that the ma-
caque monkey area F5 contains a population of
neurons—audio-visual mirror neurons—that
discharge not only during the execution or ob-
servation of a specific action but also when this
action can only be heard (Kohler et al., 2002).
Some neurons in F5 area responded to the vi-
sion and sound of a tearing action (paper rip-
ping) but also to the sound of the same action
performed out of the monkey’s sight. These
audiovisual mirror neurons code actions inde-
pendently of whether those actions are per-
formed, heard, or seen (Kohler et al., 2002). In
contrast to previous findings (Decety et al.,
1994; Tai et al., 2004), Gazzola et al. (2007)
then Peeters et al. (2009) show that the mirror
neurons system can respond to robotic actions
as well as human actions.
. . . To Understanding Intention
Since 2005 several studies have suggested
that the role of mirror neurons would not only
be limited to understanding observed actions
but would also enable the comprehension of
other people’s intentions, while watching their
actions. Iacoboni et al. (2005) in an fMRI ex-
periment have exposed participants to three dif-
ferent types of movie clips: Context, Action,
and Intention (see Figure 1). In the context
condition, participants saw various objects (jam
pot, teapot, cup, sugar bowl, dishes with cook-
ies, milk jug) arranged either as if someone was
about to eat breakfast (context before tea) or as
if someone had already taken his breakfast (con-
text after tea). In the action condition partici-
pants could see a hand grasping a cup of tea
with a precision grip (the fingers grasping the
cup handle), or with a whole-hand prehension
(the hand grasping the cup body). In the inten-
tion condition participants would see one of the
two action conditions embedded either in the
“before tea” context or in the “after tea” con-
text. Thus, one of the conditions would suggest
that fingers are grasping the cup of tea to drink.
Then the other would suggest that the hand is
grasping the cup to clean it. Compared with the
action condition, the intention condition yielded
significant signal increases in the right inferior
frontal cortex (an area known to have mirror
neuron properties). Thus the authors conclude
that this brain area is not only involved in the
recognition of a specific action but also for
understanding the intentions behind others’ ac-
tions. They suggest that “a subset of mirror
neurons in the inferior frontal cortex discharge
in response to the motor acts that are most likely
to follow the observed one” (Iacoboni et al.,
2005). This proposal is shared by Rizzolatti and
Craighero (2005): “These neurons discriminate
one motor act from another, thus activating a
motor act chain that codes the final goal of the
action. In this way the observing individual may
reenact internally the observed action and thus
predict the goal of the observed action. In this
 ADVERTISING MEMORY: THE POWER OF MIRROR NEURONS 197

Figure 1. Images taken from the Context, Action, and Intention clips. From “Grasping the
Intentions of Others With One’s Own Mirror Neuron System,” by M. Iacoboni, I. Molnar-
Szakacs, V. Gallese, G. Buccino, J. C. Mazziotta, and G. Rizzolatti, 2005, PLoS Biology, 3,
e79, p. 530. Copyright 2005 by the Iacoboni et al. Reprinted with permission.

way, the observer can ‘read’ the intention of the
acting individual.”
Mirror Neurons in Marketing Research
Dijksterhuis et al. (2005) raise the role of the
mirror neuron system in the imitation behavior
(« low road to imitation »), Henderson et al.
(2011) discuss their role in a review about loy-
alty programs, Janiszewski and Wyer (2014)
mention the role of mirrors neurons as support
of mimicry behavior, and Weber (2007) in a
paper on mirror neurons and consumer behavior
emphasizes that “mirror neurons allow the con-
sumer to learn vicariously in a passive environ-
ment, which is an ideal scenario as it represents
most situations in which the consumer is ex-
posed to a marketing message.”
However, experimental studies based on mir-
ror neurons in marketing are still uncommon.
Bagozzi et al. (2012) did explore with fMRI
neurological bases for customer orientation
(CO) and contrast them with sales orientation
(SO). They show that CO is related positively to
activation of the mirror neuron system: the
greater the CO, the greater the activation of the
posterior inferior frontal cortex, Broca’s area,
and anterior inferior parietal lobule. The authors
concluded that the functioning of the mirror
neurons system differs across people systemat-
ically and that the ability of the customer ori-
entation salespeople could be based on an effi-
cient mirror neurons network.
Curiously, although for many researchers
mirror neurons constitute the neural substrate
for learning by imitation, research in advertising
communication based on mirror neurons knowl-
edge are rare. Ohme et al. (2009) published a
study in which the authors reported that two
versions of the same advertising generated dif-
ferentiated electrophysiological responses
(electroencephalography [EEG]; facial electro-
myography [EMGf]; skin conductance [SC]).
Although the authors do not suggest it, it is
possible that mirror neurons of subjects exposed
to the ads are mobilized very differently, de-
pending on the version of the ad being watched:
“in version 1, only the model’s face was pre-
sented; conversely, in version 2, the viewers
saw her face from a slightly different angle and
then she made a particular manual gesture. First,
she touched her face with the back of her right
hand, and then when viewers could see her
whole body, she made a delicate hand move-
198 LACOSTE-BADIE AND DROULERS

ment and touched her stomach” (Ohme et al.,
2009). Thus in version 2, the observer sees the
model making a gesture (putting one’s hand on
one’s face) with a particular intent (to caress).
This could cause differentiation into neurons
mirror activation of observers and could explain
differentiated results.
Because the same neurons fire when we move
to grasp an object and bring it to our mouth,
when we look at someone grasping and bringing
an object to his mouth, because even some
mirror neurons enable to anticipate upcoming
actions (based on intention understanding), the
discovery of mirror neurons, applied to an ad-
vertising context, allows us to hypothesize that
advertisements, in which products are handled
by ad characters, are better learnt and memo-
rized than advertisements in which products are
not handled. The proposed experiment was de-
signed to test this hypothesis.
Method
Participants
One hundred thirty under- and postgraduate
students were recruited (60% women), ranging
in age from 19 to 28 years (M ⫽ 21.22; SD ⫽
1.90). The recruitment of participants took
place within university libraries. Participants
were instructed by the experimenter that the
study was part of a project designed to assess
reactions to TV programs.
Materials
One food product advertisement was selected
for this experiment. Ad selection meets several
criteria. The tested product had to be a product
intended for consumption by younger adults
both male and female. Respondents had to be
unfamiliar with the brand to neutralize potential
prior exposure based effects and in the selected
advertisement the main character had to handle
the product. Finally, we selected a mineral wa-
ter brand not marketed in the country hosting
the experiment. In the original ad (version 1) the
main character grasps the product and brings it
to the mouth to drink. Using professional video
editing software we realized a modified version
of the ad (version 2) in which the product is not
handled by the character (that is to say no con-
tact between the character and the object). The
original passages containing “grasping” and
“drinking” scenes were replaced by a fixed
product shot (see Table 1).
Several points were checked to ensure the
effectiveness of the video versions. First, mo-
ment and duration of product presentation were
the same in both versions. The advertising
soundtrack was also identical. Second, we con-
ducted several pretests to check the consistency

Table 1
Storyboards That Illustrate Each Experimental Advertisement
Audio (voice-over) Visual sequences
The modified version of the ad
Version 1 & 2: Identical ad The original ad “grasping and drinking” « no interaction » condition
soundtrack condition (version 1) (version 2)
“When you take care of yourself, Young adults gather after work
you need more”
« to move more » The characters play sports
« to laugh more » The characters have fun with a garden hose
« to drink » The characters gather in a kitchen
« and eat » the main character grasps the product a fixed product shot
« more balanced meals » The characters prepare a meal together
« BRAND » the main character grasps the product a fixed product shot
“0% ⫹ This is mineral water, fruit, Mineral water visual
fine bubbles,”
« calcium, magnesium » the main character grasps the product a fixed product shot
« and 0% of calories » the main character brings a glass of mineral a fixed product shot
water to his mouth and drinks
“BRAND, taking care of yourself
is a pleasure” Visual packshot
 ADVERTISING MEMORY: THE POWER OF MIRROR NEURONS 199

of the story. Tests to measure the advertising Table 2

aesthetics and narrative continuity showed no Means for Product and Brand Recall, and Product,
significant difference between the two versions. Packaging, and Brand Recognition (Standard
A pod has been developed with this target ad- Deviation in Parentheses)
vertisement and 6 distractive advertisements Condition 1 Condition 2
(20 seconds each). This pod was inserted in a Response (n ⫽ 65) (n ⫽ 65) t p
neutral TV program (documentary film about Recall
mass consumer computing). Product .44 (.50) .22 (.41) ⫺2.74 .007
Brand .28 (.45) .06 (.24) ⫺3.42 .001
Experimental Procedures Recognition
Product .50 (.50) .23 (.42) ⫺3.27 .001
Participants were randomly assigned to the Packaging .84 (.36) .60 (.49) ⫺3.18 .002
Condition 1 (“grasping and drinking”; n ⫽ 65) Brand .72 (.45) .58 (.49) ⫺1.60 .111
or to the Condition 2 (“no interaction”; n ⫽ 65;
between-subjects design). They watched a 15-
minute TV program (the documentary in which .50) than in the “no interaction” condition (M ⫽
a pod was inserted at the 7th minute). The .23), t(122) ⫽ ⫺3.27, p ⫽ .001, r ⫽ .28.
experimenter asked them to “relax and watch Packaging recognition was also higher in the
the TV program as if they were at home” and “grasping and drinking” condition (M ⫽ .84)
made no reference to the advertisements. than in the “no interaction” condition (M ⫽
After seeing the program, participants com- .60), t(118) ⫽ ⫺3.18, p ⫽ .002, r ⫽ .28.
pleted a questionnaire. First they performed However, we found no significant differences
free-recall product and brand tests, then product in brand recognition between the two condi-
brand and packaging recognition tests. Finally, tions, t(126) ⫽ ⫺1.60, p ⫽ .111.
they answered brand awareness, evaluation pro- In conclusion, the results of the experiment
gram, TV use, product category involvement, provided support for the hypothesis in terms of
and demographic questions. recall and recognition (except for brand recog-
nition). Findings represent a medium-sized ef-
Results fect (r ⬇ .30).

Manipulation Check Discussion

As expected, the brand was unknown to all
participants. We also checked several variables
to verify the comparability of the two samples:
the difference was not significant for evaluation
program (p ⬎ .70), for TV use (p ⬎ .65), for
product category involvement (p ⬎ .65), and
will not be discussed further.
Advertising Memory
As shown in Table 2, Product recall was
significantly higher in the “grasping and drink-
ing” condition (M ⫽ .44) than in the “no inter-
action” condition (M ⫽ .22), t(122) ⫽ ⫺2.74,
p ⫽ .007, r ⫽ .24.
Brand recall was significantly higher in the
“grasping and drinking” condition (M ⫽ .28)
than in the “no interaction” condition (M ⫽
.06), t(95) ⫽ ⫺3.42, p ⫽ .001, r ⫽ .33.
Product recognition was significantly higher
in the “grasping and drinking” condition (M ⫽
As outlined previously, mirror neurons are
considered as one of the most interesting dis-
coveries in human and social sciences in recent
years. Mirror neurons are involved in both the
understanding of motor acts performed by oth-
ers and the understanding of intention behind
the acts (Rizzolatti et al., 2009). Today, the
contribution of neuroscience to marketing and
in particular to the study of consumer behavior
is essential. In line with advances in neurosci-
ence research, some researchers are beginning
to take an interest in the study of mirror neurons
in marketing contexts (Bagozzi et al., 2012).
The present study proposed to examine the
marketing practices such as advertising design
mobilizing neuroscientific knowledge in mirror
neurons. The results lent some support to the
hypothesis according to which commercials
featuring a character grabbing a product and
bringing it to his mouth to eat (or drink) benefit
from better learning— here measured in terms
200 LACOSTE-BADIE AND DROULERS
of advertising recall and recognition—than
commercials in which the products are not han-
dled. Although we cannot conclusively say that
the mirror neurons were activated when people
saw the character handle the product in the ad,
the literature on mirror neurons provides an
explanatory framework for the observed results.
This result is consistent with Ohme et al. (2009)
study that indicated that the brain can register
even small differences between the ads.
To our knowledge no work based on mirror
neuron system has been conducted in the con-
text of advertising persuasion and memoriza-
tion. This first study was conducted among a
population of young adults (130 individuals). It
would be interesting to stretch this study to a
much older and larger population. Our results
show that advertisers should design TV com-
mercials in which characters handled the prod-
ucts. This may seem obvious, but in a prelimi-
nary study conducted on more than 800 TV
commercials in Europe we observed that the
product was handled by the main character in
only 44% of ads. Although further work is
required to gain a more complete understanding
of the processing of advertising that involve
handling the product, our findings indicate that
the observation of actions performed by others
may well be a significant lever for improving
advertisements.
The exploratory nature of the study can lay
the foundation for future research. First, it
seems that there are motor sequences that cause
preferential activation of neurons mirrors. Iaco-
boni et al. (2005) stressed that in both action
and intention conditions there was an activation
of the mirror neurons system and that, com-
pared with the action condition, intention con-
dition yielded significant signal increases in the
mirror neurons area (right inferior frontal
gyrus). But another finding of this work lays in
the observation of the tea-cup-grasping-to-drink
movement, which produced stronger activation
than did the observation of the cup-grasping-to-
clean movement. Rizzolatti et al. (2009) suggest
that this result is similar to findings of studies
conducted on monkeys, which show that the
number of neurons that code “grasping for
bringing” to the mouth largely exceeds the num-
ber of neurons that code “grasping for putting
an object into a container.” In an advertising
context, it could be interesting to test different
ways to handle the product, and to compare
only grasping, only drinking, or grasping and
drinking together.
Second, it seems that the functioning of neu-
ron mirror system is modulated by the expertise
and motor repertoire of the observer. Using
functional MRI, Calvo-Merino et al. (2005) ex-
posed experts in classical ballet, experts in ca-
poeira, and nonexperts in ballet and capoeira
(for control purpose) to videos of ballet or ca-
poeira moves. They observed greater bilateral
activations in classical mirror areas—premotor
cortex, parietal cortex, superior temporal sul-
cus—when expert dancers viewed movements
that they had been trained to perform compared
with movements they had not. The authors con-
clude that results show that this ‘mirror system’
integrates observed actions of others with an
individual’s personal motor repertoire, and sug-
gest that the human brain understands actions
by motor simulation. Because action observa-
tion may recruit such mirror areas to the extent
that the observed action is represented in the
subject’s personal motor repertoire, it would be
interesting to test the effect of seen actions in
advertisements that the observer can more or
less easily transforms into inner representation.
Third, this research calls into question the
possible part of neuron mirrors in triggering in
the viewer a behavior. It could be interesting to
find out whether or not the fact of observing in
an ad someone bringing food (product) to his
mouth for consumption can trigger the same
behavior in the viewer in a short or medium
term to a point of potential overconsumption.
This question regarding the potential influence
of (an ad character’s) behavior observation on
our own behavior remains open to discussion,
as one of the key attributes of neuron mirrors is
their involvement in the understanding of the
action of someone we observe or the under-
standing of his intention, without it automati-
cally causing us to adopt the same behavior.
Researching more in depth the question of neu-
ron mirrors influence upon imitation-based be-
haviors—in the context of food, alcohol or to-
bacco consumption— could potentially lead to
improving the design of prevention campaign.
Finally, the authors believe that before mobi-
lizing sophisticated neuroscientific techniques
to visualize activation of brain areas, it is useful
to carry out exploratory studies based on con-
ventional methods in marketing. On one hand,
as this study shows, first significant results can
 ADVERTISING MEMORY: THE POWER OF MIRROR NEURONS
be underlined; on the other hand, these studies
allow to refine the research question and better
justify a deepening of research mobilizing more
complex techniques.
References
Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W. J., van den Berg, W. E.,
Rietdijk, W. J., Dietvorst, R. C., & Worm, L.
(2012). Genetic and neurological foundations of
customer orientation: Field and experimental evi-
dence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 40, 639 – 658. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-
0271-4
Calvo-Merino, B., Glaser, D. E., Grèzes, J., Passing-
ham, R. E., & Haggard, P. (2005). Action obser-
vation and acquired motor skills: An fMRI study
with expert dancers. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 8, 1243–
1249. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhi007
Decety, J., Perani, D., Jeannerod, M., Bettinardi, V.,
Tadary, B., Woods, R., . . . Fazio, F. (1994).
Mapping motor representations with positron
emission tomography. Nature, 371, 600 – 602. doi:
10.1038/371600a0
Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P. K., van Baaren, R. B., &
Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2005). The unconscious con-
sumer: Effects of environment on consumer be-
havior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 3,
193–202. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_3
Di Pellegrino, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V.,
& Rizzolatti, G. (1992). Understanding motor
events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental
Brain Research, 91, 176 –180. doi:10.1007/
BF00230027
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G.
(1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex.
Brain, 119, 593– 609. doi:10.1093/brain/119.2.593
Gazzola, V., Rizzolatti, G., Wicker, B., & Keysers,
C. (2007). The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror
neuron system responds to human and robotic ac-
tions. NeuroImage, 35, 1674 –1684. doi:10.1016/j
.neuroimage.2007.02.003
Henderson, C. M., Beck, J. T., & Palmatier, R. W.
(2011). Review of the theoretical underpinnings of
loyalty programs. Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, 21, 256 –276. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.02.007
Iacoboni, M., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V., Buc-
cino, G., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2005).
Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own
mirror neuron system. PLoS Biology, 3, 3, e79.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079
Janiszewski, C., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2014). Content
and process priming: A review. Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology, 24, 1, 96 –118. doi:10.1016/j
.jcps.2013.05.006
Kilner, J. M., Neal, A., Weiskopf, N., Friston, K. J.,
& Frith, C. D. (2009). Evidence of mirror neurons
201
in human inferior frontal gyrus. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 29, 10153–10159. doi:10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.2668-09.2009
Kohler, E., Keysers, C., Umilta, A., Fogassi, L.,
Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Hearing
sounds, understanding actions: Action representa-
tion in mirror neurons. Science, 297, 846 – 848.
doi:10.1126/science.1070311
Mukamel, R., Ekstrom, A. D., Kaplan, J., Iacoboni,
M., & Fried, I. (2010). Single-neuron responses in
humans during execution and observation of ac-
tions. Current Biology, 20, 750 –756. doi:10.1016/
j.cub.2010.02.045
Ohme, R., Wiener, D., Reykowska, D., & Choroman-
ska, A. (2009). Analysis of neurophysiological re-
actions to advertising stimuli by means of EEG
and galvanic skin response measures. Journal of
Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 2, 1,
21–31. doi:10.1037/a0015462
Peeters, R., Simone, L., Nelissen, K., Fabbri-Destro,
M., Vanduffel, W., Rizzolatti, G., & Orban, G. A.
(2009). The representation of tool use in humans
and monkeys: Common and uniquely human fea-
tures. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 11523–
11539. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2040-09.2009
Penfield, W., & Rasmussen, T. (1950). The cerebral
cortex of man. A clinical study of localization of
function. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ramachandran, V. S. (2000). Mirror neurons and imi-
tation learning as the driving force behind “the great
leap forward” in human evolution. Retrieved March
4, 2014, from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/
ramachandran/ramachandran_pl.html
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2005). Mirror neu-
ron: A neurological approach to empathy. In J.-P.
Changeux, A. R. Damasio, W. Singer, & Y. Chris-
ten (Eds.), Neurobiology of human values (pp.
107–123). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi:
10.1007/3-540-29803-7_9
Rizzolatti, G., & Fabbri-Destro, M. (2010). Mirror
neurons: From discovery to autism. Experimental
Brain Research, 200, 223–237. doi:10.1007/
s00221-009-2002-3
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L.
(1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of
motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–
141. doi:10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0
Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001).
Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the
understanding and imitation of action. Nature Re-
views Neuroscience, 2, 661– 670. doi:10.1038/
35090060
Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2009). The
mirror neuron system: A motor-based mechanism
for action and intention understanding. In M. S.
Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences
(fourth ed., pp. 625– 640). London, UK: The MIT
Press Cambridge.
202 LACOSTE-BADIE AND DROULERS

Tai, Y. F., Scherfler, C., Brooks, D. J., Sawamoto, N., strategies. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal,
& Castiello, U. (2004). The human premotor cor- 11, 2, 57– 68.
tex is ‘mirror’ only for biological actions. Current
Biology, 14, 117–120. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.01
.005 Received March 15, 2014
Weber, J. M. (2007). Mirror neurons networks: Im- Revision received July 17, 2014
plications for modeling and consumer behavior Accepted August 5, 2014 䡲

New Editors Appointed, 2016 –2021

The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association

announces the appointment of 9 new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2016. As of
January 1, 2015, manuscripts should be directed as follows:

● History of Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/hop/), Nadine M.

Weidman, PhD, Harvard University
● Journal of Family Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/fam/), Barbara
H. Fiese, PhD, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
● JPSP: Personality Processes and Individual Differences (http://www.apa.org/pubs/
journals/psp/), M. Lynne Cooper, PhD, University of Missouri—Columbia
● Psychological Assessment (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pas/), Yossef S. Ben-
Porath, PhD, Kent State University
● Psychological Review (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rev/), Keith J. Holyoak,
PhD, University of California, Los Angeles
● International Journal of Stress Management (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/
str/), Oi Ling Siu, PhD, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong
● Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/
ocp/), Peter Y. Chen, PhD, Auburn University
● Personality Disorders (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/per/), Thomas A. Widi-
ger, PhD, University of Kentucky
● Psychology of Men & Masculinity (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/men/), Wil-
liam Ming Liu, PhD, University of Iowa

Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2015, manuscripts should be

submitted electronically to the new editors via the journal’s Manuscript Submission Portal
(see the website listed above with each journal title).

Current editors Wade E. Pickren, PhD, Nadine J. Kaslow, PhD, Laura A. King, PhD,
Cecil R. Reynolds, PhD, John Anderson, PhD, Sharon Glazer, PhD, Carl W. Lejuez, PhD,
and Ronald F. Levant, EdD, will receive and consider new manuscripts through December
31, 2014.
 Copyright of Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, & Economics is the property of
Association for NeuroPsychoEconomics and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats