Abstract:The serendipitous discovery of mirror neurons in cognitive neurosciencehas recently revived interest in the old philosophical “problemof other minds”. The remarkable thing about the mirror neuronsis that they fire not only when an individual is performing an action,but also when that individual passively observes a similar actionperformed by another individual. It is widely assumed that mirrorneurons provide a “motor resonance” mechanism by whichwe can understand the actions of others by directly mapping the actionsof other people onto our own motor system. This mechanism seems tobridge the gap between the self and the other, thus providing a directaccess to other minds. Here we systematically review the motor resonance theory, discussits current problems and challenges, and provide suggestions for futureresearch. We firstly introduce the framework of the theory with itsdefinitions, scopes and methods. In particular, we clarify severalambiguous notions in the literature such as “intra- vs. inter-personalresonance” and “movement vs. action”. Then weoutline empirical evidence in support of the theory from two bodiesof research: Non-invasive neuro-stimulation (e.g. transcranial magneticstimulation) and clinical studies with action understanding deficits(e.g. apraxia, Broca’s aphasia and autism). These studies suggestthe motor resonance is the necessary and sufficient condition fordirect access to other minds. Next, we summarize major criticisms of motor resonance theory inrecent years. Ever since mirror neurons were discovered, there hasbeen a great debate on its functions and ontogeny. Recent studiesquestion its “direct-mapping” property by showing thatsensory representation of an observed action can be arbitrarily mappedto the motor representation of a different action after sensorimotortraining. This suggests the motor resonance may merely be a byproductof associative learning, rather than an evolutionary selected mechanismfor action understanding. In contrast, the Genetic hypothesis suggestsmotor resonance provides a unique direct-mapping mechanism for directaccess to other minds, thus functions as an adaptation for actionunderstanding. This claim has been supported by neonate imitationresearch as well as evidence showing early stage activity (u003c250 ms)of mirror neurons cannot be modulated by short time sensorimotor training. Other criticisms challenge the directness of motor resonance byshowing that motor resonance can be modulated by multiple contextual,social and cultural factors. This implies the mirror neuron systemmay intricately interact with other brain regions during motor resonance.Therefore, some suggests action understanding should be examined inthe framework of “extended mirror neuron system” whichincludes other functional routes (other than motor resonance) suchas the mentalizing system. We discuss three directions for future research. First, we believemost debates on motor resonance are “theoretical” insteadof “empirical” issues. Theoretical dilemma such as “strictcongruent vs. broadly congruent mirror neurons” cannot reconcilewith the core “direct-mapping” mechanism; differentlevels of inference (e.g. low-level kinematics vs. high-level intention)should be separately theorized. More precise definitions and taxonomyin this field will allow for better assessments and hence a more fruitfulempirical research. Second, the field could greatly benefit from investigatingthe “extended mirror neuron system”. These distributenetworks interact with classical frontal-parietal circuit during motorresonance and facilitate overall understanding of other’s behavior.Future research is needed to elucidate the relationship between them.Finally, due to the technical limitations of current neuroimagingmethods, it is challenging to obtain direct evidence that unequivocallyproves or rejects motor resonance theory. We would encourage researchersto employ advanced technique with excellent spatial and temporal resolution(e.g. intracranial electroencephalography) to directly examine theprocessing sequence as well as the implicated brain regions duringmotor resonance.

Mirror neurons as a conceptual mechanism?

The mirror mechanism: a basic principle of brain function

Mirror neurons and their relationship with neurodegenerative disorders

What Happened to Mirror Neurons?

Mirror neurons in the tree of life: mosaic evolution, plasticity and exaptation of sensorimotor matching responses

Mirror neurons and their function in cognitively understood empathy

The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: interpretations and misinterpretations

Two different mirror neuron pathways for social and non-social actions? A meta-analysis of fMRI studies

Preview on Understanding Reading Process of Mirror Neurons

Interfering with the neural activity of mirror-related frontal areas impairs mentalistic inferences

Can we have direct access to other minds by "motor resonance"? A critical reassessment

Is the Putative Mirror Neuron System Associated with Empathy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Mirror neurons: the neural basis for self-awareness and emotional contagion

Expanding the mirror: vicarious activity for actions, emotions, and sensations

Associative (not Hebbian) learning and the mirror neuron system

The cerebellum and the Mirror Neuron System: A matter of inhibition? From neurophysiological evidence to neuromodulatory implications. A narrative review

Brain regions with mirror properties: A meta-analysis of 125 human fMRI studies

Hebbian learning and predictive mirror neurons for actions, sensations and emotions

Reality and imagination intertwined: A sensorimotor paradox interpretation

Study of the functioning of mirror neurons in normal conditions, in neurological and psychiatric diseases: a systematic review of the literature

Synergy of the Mirror Neuron System and the Mentalizing System in a single brain and between brains during Joint Actions