Top

Gepubliceerd in:

23-02-2016 | Original Article

Imitation and matching of meaningless gestures: distinct involvement from motor and visual imagery

Auteurs: Mathieu Lesourd, Jordan Navarro, Josselin Baumard, Christophe Jarry, Didier Le Gall, François Osiurak

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2017

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to understand the underlying cognitive processes of imitation and matching of meaningless gestures. Neuropsychological evidence obtained in brain damaged patients, has shown that distinct cognitive processes supported imitation and matching of meaningless gestures. Left-brain damaged (LBD) patients failed to imitate while right-brain damaged (RBD) patients failed to match meaningless gestures. Moreover, other studies with brain damaged patients showed that LBD patients were impaired in motor imagery while RBD patients were impaired in visual imagery. Thus, we hypothesize that imitation of meaningless gestures might rely on motor imagery, whereas matching of meaningless gestures might be based on visual imagery. In a first experiment, using a correlational design, we demonstrated that posture imitation relies on motor imagery but not on visual imagery (Experiment 1a) and that posture matching relies on visual imagery but not on motor imagery (Experiment 1b). In a second experiment, by manipulating directly the body posture of the participants, we demonstrated that such manipulation evokes a difference only in imitation task but not in matching task. In conclusion, the present study provides direct evidence that the way we imitate or we have to compare postures depends on motor imagery or visual imagery, respectively. Our results are discussed in the light of recent findings about underlying mechanisms of meaningful and meaningless gestures.

volgende artikel Influence of finger and mouth action observation on random number generation: an instance of embodied cognition for abstract concepts

Conceptual mediation specifies the determining features of the gesture independently of arbitrary variations of its visual appearance caused by differences between demonstrating persons and between angles of view under which they are perceived (see Goldenberg, 1999).

α = covariance(x, y)/variance(x) where x is the degree of the orientation of the hand (expressed in °) and y is the RT for each orientation (expressed in ms).

To compute the slope of the motor imagery task, we did not take into account the 270° orientation. Indeed, it has been previously shown that the transformation of the the 180° to the 270° orientation is not linear and depends on the laterality of the hand. It has been assumed that this effect reveals biomechanical constraints (e.g., Parsons, 1994). Thus, the slopes for visual imagery task and motor imagery task were computed in the same range (i.e., 0°–180°).

α = covariance(x, y)/variance(x) where x is the degree of the orientation of the right model relative to the left model (expressed in °) and y is the RT for each orientation (expressed in ms).

Adolphs, R. (2003). Cognitive neuroscience of human social behavior. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 165–178.CrossRefPubMed

Cooper, L. A. (1975). Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 20–43. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90003-1.CrossRef

Cubelli, R., Marchetti, C., Boscolo, G., & Della Sala, S. (2000). Cognition in action: Testing a model of limb apraxia. Brain and Cognition, 44(2), 144–165. doi:10.1006/brcg.2000.1226.CrossRefPubMed

de Lange, F. P., Helmich, R. C., & Toni, I. (2006). Posture influences motor imagery: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 33(2), 609–617. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.07.017.CrossRefPubMed

Decety, J. (1996). Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate? Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 87–93. doi:10.1016/0926-6410(95)00033-X.CrossRefPubMed

Decety, J., Grèzes, J., Costes, N., Perani, D., Jeannerod, M., Procyk, E., … Fazio, F. (1997). Brain activity during observation of actions. Influence of action content and subject’s strategy. Brain, 120, 1763–1777. doi:10.1093/brain/120.10.1763.CrossRefPubMed

Decety, J., & Ingvar, D. H. (1990). Brain structures participating in mental simulation of motor behavior: A neuropsychological interpretation. Acta Psychologica, 73(1), 13–34. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(90)90056-L.CrossRefPubMed

Goldenberg, G. (1995). Imitating gestures and manipulating a mannikin—The representation of the human body in ideomotor apraxia. Neuropsychologia, 33(1), 63–72. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(94)00104-W.CrossRefPubMed

Goldenberg, G. (1999). Matching and imitation of hand and finger postures in patients with damage in the left or right hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 37(5), 559–566. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00111-0.CrossRefPubMed

Goldenberg, G. (2001). Imitation and matching of hand and finger postures. NeuroImage, 14, 132–136. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0820.CrossRef

Goldenberg, G. (2013). Apraxia: The cognitive side of motor control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Goldenberg, G., & Hagmann, S. (1997). The meaning of meaningless gestures: A study of visuo-imitative apraxia. Neuropsychologia, 35(3), 333–341. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(96)00085-1.CrossRefPubMed

Hodges, J. R., Bozeat, S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., & Spatt, J. (2000). The role of conceptual knowledge in object use evidence from semantic dementia. Brain, 123, 1913–1925. doi:10.1093/brain/123.9.1913.CrossRefPubMed

Johnson-Frey, S. H. (2004). The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(2), 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.002.CrossRefPubMed

Kosslyn, S. M. (1987). Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemisphere: A computational approach. Psychological Review, 94, 148–175.CrossRefPubMed

Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75–78. doi:10.1126/science.198.4312.75.CrossRefPubMed

Negri, G. A. L., Rumiati, R. I., Zadini, A., Ukmar, M., Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2007). What is the role of motor simulation in action and object recognition? Evidence from apraxia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24(8), 795–816. doi:10.1080/02643290701707412.CrossRefPubMed

Ochipa, C., Rothi, L. J., & Heilman, K. M. (1989). Ideational apraxia: A deficit in tool selection and use. Annals of Neurology, 25(2), 190–193. doi:10.1002/ana.410250214.CrossRefPubMed

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.CrossRefPubMed

Parsons, L. M. (1994). Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 709–730. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.20.4.709.PubMed

Pelgrims, B., Andres, M., & Olivier, E. (2009). Double dissociation between motor and visual imagery in the posterior parietal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 19(10), 2298–2307. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn248.CrossRefPubMed

Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 661–670.CrossRefPubMed

Rumiati, R. I., Carmo, J. C., & Corradi-Dell’Acqua, C. (2009). Neuropsychological perspectives on the mechanisms of imitation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 364(1528), 2337–2347. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0063.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rumiati, R. I., Tomasino, B., Vorano, L., Umiltà, C., & De Luca, G. (2001). Selective deficit of imagining finger configurations. Cortex, 37, 730–733.CrossRefPubMed

Schwoebel, J., & Coslett, H. B. (2005). Evidence for multiple, distinct representations of the human body. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(4), 543–553. doi:10.1162/0898929053467587.CrossRefPubMed

Shiffrar, M., & Freyd, J. J. (1990). Apparent motion of the human body. Psychological Science, 1, 257–264.CrossRef

Simmons, K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). The similarity-in-topography principle: Reconciling theories of conceptual deficits. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 451–486.CrossRefPubMed

Sirigu, A., & Duhamel, J. R. (2001). Motor and visual imagery as two complementary but neurally dissociable mental processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(7), 910–919. doi:10.1162/089892901753165827.CrossRefPubMed

Sirigu, A., Grafman, J., & Sunderland, T. (1991). Multiple representations contribute to body knowledge processing. Brain, 114, 629–642. Retrieved from papers2://publication/uuid/9A1C10D4-40AD-4D1B-9675-E1746B3C2152.

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin,. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245.

Stevens, J. A. (2005). Interference effects demonstrate distinct roles for visual and motor imagery during the mental representation of human action. Cognition, 95(3), 329–350. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.008.CrossRefPubMed

Tessari, A., Canessa, N., Ukmar, M., & Rumiati, R. I. (2007). Neuropsychological evidence for a strategic control of multiple routes in imitation. Brain, 130(4), 1111–1126. doi:10.1093/brain/awm003.CrossRefPubMed

Tessari, A., & Rumiati, R. I. (2004). The strategic control of multiple routes in imitation of actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(6), 1107–1116. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.30.6.1107.PubMed

Tomasino, B., & Rumiati, R. I. (2004). Effects of strategies on mental rotation and hemispheric lateralization: Neuropsychological evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 878–888. doi:10.1162/089892904970753.CrossRefPubMed

Tomasino, B., Toraldo, A., & Rumiati, R. I. (2003). Dissociation between the mental rotation of visual images and motor images in unilateral brain-damaged patients. Brain and Cognition, 51, 368–371.CrossRefPubMed

Vannuscorps, G., Pillon, A., & Andres, M. (2012). Effect of biomechanical constraints in the hand laterality judgment task: Where does it come from? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–9. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00299.CrossRef

Vingerhoets, G., de Lange, F. P., Vandemaele, P., Deblaere, K., & Achten, E. (2002). Motor imagery in mental rotation: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 17(3), 1623–1633. doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1290.CrossRefPubMed

Viswanathan, S., Fritz, C., & Grafton, S. T. (2012). Telling the right hand from the left hand: Multisensory integration, not motor imagery, solves the problem. Psychological Science, 23(6), 598–607. doi:10.1177/0956797611429802.CrossRefPubMed

Wohlschlager, A., Gattis, M., & Bekkering, H. (2003). Action generation and action perception in imitation: An instance of the ideomotor principle. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 501–515. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1257.CrossRef

Wraga, M., Creem, S. H., & Proffitt, D. R. (1999). The influence of spatial reference frames on imagined object and viewer rotations. Acta Psychologica, 102, 247–264.CrossRefPubMed

Zacks, J., Mires, J., Tversky, B., & Hazeltine, E. (2000). Mental spatial transformations of objects and perspective. Sptaial Cognition and Computation, 2, 315–332.CrossRef

Titel: Imitation and matching of meaningless gestures: distinct involvement from motor and visual imagery
Auteurs: Mathieu Lesourd
Jordan Navarro
Josselin Baumard
Christophe Jarry
Didier Le Gall
François Osiurak
Publicatiedatum: 23-02-2016
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0758-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2017

Simple reaction time and size–distance integration in virtual 3D space

Original Article

Post-conflict slowing after incongruent stimuli: from general to conflict-specific

Original Article

www.kanjidatabase.com: a new interactive online database for psychological and linguistic research on Japanese kanji and their compound words

Original Article

Self-perception beyond the body: the role of past agency

Original Article

Increased cognitive demands boost the spatial interference effect in bimanual pointing

Open Access
Original Article

Investigating the characteristics of “not responding”: backward crosstalk in the PRP paradigm with forced vs. free no-go decisions

Original Article