Schmitz, L.*, & Reader, A. T.* Smaller preferred interpersonal distance for joint versus parallel action. doi: 10.31234/ *shared first authorship

Reader, A. T., Coppi, S., Trifonova, V. S., & Ehrsson, H. H. No reduction in corticospinal excitability during the rubber hand illusion. doi: 10.31219/


Reader, A. T. What do participants expect to experience in the rubber hand illusion? A conceptual replication of Lush (2020). Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 35743. doi: 10.1525/collabra.35743

Scrivener, C. L., & Reader, A. T. (2022). Variability of EEG electrode positions and their underlying brain regions: visualizing gel artifacts from a simultaneous EEG-fMRI dataset. Brain and Behavior, e2476. doi: 10.1002/brb3.2476


Reader, A. T., Trifonova, V. S., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2021). Little evidence for an effect of the rubber hand illusion on basic movement. European Journal of Neuroscience. doi: 10.1111/ejn.15444

Reader, A. T., Tamè, L., Zeni, S., & Holmes, N. P. (preprint). An instance of presyncope during magnetic stimulation of the median nerve, and instances of presyncope and syncope during evaluation of resting motor threshold with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). doi: 10.31219/

Reader, A. T., Trifonova, V. S., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2021). The relationship between referral of touch and the feeling of ownership in the rubber hand illusion. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 629590. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629590


Reader, A. T., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2019). Weakening the subjective sensation of own hand ownership does not interfere with rapid finger movements. PLoS ONE, 14(10), e0223580. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223580

Reader, A. T.*, & Crucianelli, L.* (2019). A multisensory perspective on the role of the amygdala in body ownership. Journal of Neuroscience, 39(39), . doi: *shared first authorship

Reader, A. T., & Holmes, N. P. (2019). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the left posterior middle temporal gyrus reduces wrist velocity during emblematic hand gesture imitation. Brain Topography32(2), 332-341. doi: 10.1007/s10548-018-0684-1

Reader, A. T., & Candidi, M. (2019). Does apraxia support spatial and kinematic or mirror neuron approaches to social interaction? A commentary on Binder et al. (2017). Cortex, 111, 324-326. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.10.018


Reader, A. T., Rao, V. M., Christakou, A., & Holmes, N. P. (2018). A kinematic examination of dual-route processing for action imitation. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(8), 2069-2083. doi: 10.3758/s13414-018-1582-z

Reader, A. T., & Holmes, N. P. (2018). The left ventral premotor cortex is involved in hand shaping for intransitive gestures: evidence from a two-person imitation experiment. Royal Society Open Science, 5, 181356. doi: 10.1098/rsos.181356 (correction here)

Reader, A. T., Royce, B. P., Marsh, J. E., Chivers, K., & Holmes, N. P. (2018). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals a role for the left inferior parietal lobule in matching observed kinematics during imitation. European Journal of Neuroscience47(8), 918-928. doi: 10.1111/ejn.13886


Reader, A. T. (2017). Optimal motor synergy extraction for novel actions and virtual environments. Journal of Neurophysiology118(2), 652-654. doi: 10.1152/jn.00165.2017


Reader, A. T., & Holmes, N. P. (2016). Examining ecological validity in social interaction: problems of visual fidelity, gaze, and social potential. Culture and Brain, 4(2), 134-146. doi: 10.1007/s40167-016-0041-8

Reader, A. T. (2016). Semantic organization of body part representations in the occipitotemporal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience36(2), 265-267. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3766-15.2016


Reader, A. T., & Holmes, N. P (2015). Video stimuli reduce object-directed imitation accuracy: a novel two-person motion-tracking paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology6(644). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00644


Naish, K. R., Reader, A. T., Houston-Price, C., Bremner, A. J., & Holmes, N. P. (2013). To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences. Experimental Brain Research225(2), 261-275.  doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3367-2