Top

Gepubliceerd in:

08-11-2018 | Original Article

Left inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortices mediate the effect of action observation on semantic processing of objects: evidence from rTMS

Auteurs: Francesco De Bellis, Alfonso Magliacano, Laura Sagliano, Massimiliano Conson, Dario Grossi, Luigi Trojano

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2020

Abstract

Previous studies showed that motor information related to tool use (i.e., functional actions) could affect processing of objects semantic properties, whereas motor information related to grasping or moving tool (i.e., structural actions) cannot. However, little is known about the neural correlates mediating such interaction between motor and semantic information. Here, healthy participants performed a semantic judgment task requiring identification of semantic relations among objects, after observing a functional, a structural or a pointing action prime. In a within-subject design, during prime presentation the participants underwent repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the left supramarginal gyrus (SMG), the left posterior middle temporal gyrus (pMTG) or received sham stimulation. Results showed that in the sham condition observing functional actions (vs. structural and pointing actions) favoured processing of semantic relations based on function similarity (i.e., taxonomic relations), but not of relations based on co-occurrence within an event schema (i.e., thematic relations). Moreover, stimulation of both left SMG and pMTG abolished the effect of functional action primes worsening subsequent judgment about taxonomic relations, and this effect was greater after pMTG stimulation. rTMS did not affect processing of thematic semantic relations. We suggest that action observation triggers activation of functional motor information within left inferior parietal cortex, and that integration between functional motor and conceptual information in left temporal cortex could impact high-level semantic processing of tools.

vorige artikel The impact of training methodology and category structure on the formation of new categories from existing knowledge

volgende artikel No evaluative conditioning effects with briefly presented stimuli

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Andres, M., Pelgrims, B., & Olivier, E. (2013). Distinct contribution of the parietal and temporal cortex to hand configuration and contextual judgements about tools. Cortex, 49(8), 2097–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.11.013.CrossRefPubMed

Andres, M., Pelgrims, B., Olivier, E., & Vannuscorps, G. (2017). The left supramarginal gyrus contributes to finger positioning for object use: A neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation study. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 46(12), 2835–2843. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhq180.CrossRefPubMed

Avenanti, A., Candidi, M., & Urgesi, C. (2013). Vicarious motor activation during action perception: Beyond correlational evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 185. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Beauchamp, M. S., Lee, K. E., Haxby, J. V., & Martin, A. (2002). Parallel visual motion processing streams for manipulable objects and human movements. Neuron, 34(1), 149–159.CrossRef

Beauchamp, M. S., Lee, K. E., Haxby, J. V., & Martin, A. (2003). FMRI responses to video and point-light displays of moving humans and manipulable objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(7), 991–1001. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903770007380.CrossRefPubMed

Beauchamp, M. S., & Martin, A. (2007). Grounding objects concepts in perceptions and actions: Evidence from fMRI studies of tools. Cortex, 43(3), 461–468.CrossRef

Binkofski, F., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2013). Two action systems in the human brain. Brain and Language, 127(2), 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.07.007.CrossRefPubMed

Borghi, A. M., Flumini, A., Natraj, N., & Wheaton, L. A. (2012). One hand, two objects: Emergence of affordance in contexts. Brain and Cognition, 80(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.04.007.CrossRefPubMed

Boronat, C. B., Buxbaum, L. J., Coslett, H. B., Tang, K., Saffran, E. M., Kimberg, D. Y., et al. (2005). Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: Evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Cognitive Brain Research, 23(2–3), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.11.001.CrossRefPubMed

Bracci, S., Cavina-Pratesi, C., Ietswaart, M., Caramazza, A., & Peelen, M. V. (2012). Closely overlapping responses to tools and hands in left lateral occipitotemporal cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 107(5), 1443–1456. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00619.2011.CrossRefPubMed

Bracci, S., & Peelen, M. V. (2013). Body and object effectors: the organization of object representations in high-level visual cortex reflects body–object interactions. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(46), 18247–18258. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1322-13.2013.CrossRefPubMed

Bub, D., & Masson, M. (2006). Gestural knowledge evoked by objects as part of conceptual representations. Aphasiology, 20(9), 1112–1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030600741667.CrossRef

Bub, D. N., & Masson, M. E. J. (2010). On the nature of hand-action representations evoked during written sentence comprehension. Cognition, 116, 394–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.001.CrossRefPubMed

Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Cree, G. S. (2008). Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition, 106(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.010.CrossRefPubMed

Buxbaum, L. J., & Kalénine, S. (2010). Action knowledge, visuomotor activation, and embodiment in the two action systems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191(1), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05447.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Buxbaum, L. J., Kyle, K., Grossman, M., & Coslett, H. B. (2007). Left inferior parietal representations for skilled hand-object interactions: Evidence from stroke and corticobasal degeneration. Cortex, 43(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70466-0.CrossRefPubMed

Buxbaum, L. J., Kyle, K. M., & Menon, R. (2005). On beyond mirror neurons: Internal representations subserving imitation and recognition of skilled object-related actions in humans. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.05.014.CrossRefPubMed

Buxbaum, L. J., Kyle, K. M., Tang, K., & Detre, J. A. (2006). Neural substrates of knowledge of hand postures for object grasping and functional object use: Evidence from fMRI. Brain Research, 1117(1), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.010.CrossRefPubMed

Buxbaum, L. J., & Saffran, E. M. (2002). Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: Dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects. Brain and Language, 82(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00014-7.CrossRefPubMed

Buxbaum, L. J., Shapiro, A. D., & Coslett, H. B. (2014). Critical brain regions for tool-related and imitative actions: A componential analysis. Brain, 137(7), 1971–1985. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Canessa, N., Borgo, F., Cappa, S. F., Perani, D., Falini, A., Buccino, G., et al. (2007). The different neural correlates of action and functional knowledge in semantic memory: An FMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 18(4), 740–751. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm110.CrossRefPubMed

Caspers, S., Eickhoff, S. B., Rick, T., von Kapri, A., Kuhlen, T., Huang, R., et al. (2011). Probabilistic fibre tract analysis of cytoarchitectonically defined human inferior parietal lobule areas reveals similarities to macaques. Neuroimage, 58, 362–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.027.CrossRefPubMed

Cavina-Pratesi, C., Monaco, S., Fattori, P., Galletti, C., McAdam, T. D., Quinlan, D. J., et al. (2010). Functional magnetic resonance imaging reveals the neural substrates of arm transport and grip formation in reach-to-grasp actions in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(31), 10306–10323. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2023-10.2010.CrossRefPubMed

Chao, L. L., Haxby, J. V., & Martin, A. (1999). Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 913. https://doi.org/10.1038/13217.CrossRefPubMed

Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage, 12, 478–484.CrossRef

Chao, L. L., Weisberg, J., & Martin, A. (2002). Experience-dependent modulation of category-related cortical activity. Cerebral Cortex, 12(5), 545–551.CrossRef

Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.CrossRef

Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(2), 163.CrossRef

Creem, S. H., & Proffitt, D. R. (2001). Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 218.PubMed

Creem-Regehr, S. H., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Neural representations of graspable objects: Are tools special? Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.10.006.CrossRefPubMed

De Bellis, F., Ferrara, A., Errico, D., Panico, F., Sagliano, L., Conson, M., et al. (2016). Observing functional actions affects semantic processing of tools: Evidence of a motor-to-semantic priming. Experimental Brain Research, 234(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4432-4.CrossRefPubMed

Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking: the apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 54, pp. 249–294). Cambridge: Academic Press.

Farah, M. J., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). A computational model of semantic memory impairment: Modality specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120(4), 339.CrossRef

Filimon, F. (2010). Human cortical control of hand movements: Parietofrontal networks for reaching, grasping, and pointing. The Neuroscientist, 16(4), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858410375468.CrossRefPubMed

Frey, S. H. (2007). What puts the how in where? Tool use and the divided visual streams hypothesis. Cortex, 43(3), 368–375.CrossRef

Garcea, F. E., & Mahon, B. Z. (2012). What is in a tool concept? Dissociating manipulation knowledge from function knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 40(8), 1303–1313. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0236-y.CrossRef

Gazzola, V., & Keysers, C. (2008). The observation and execution of actions share motor and somatosensory voxels in all tested subjects: Single-subject analyses of unsmoothed fMRI data. Cerebral Cortex, 19(6), 1239–1255. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn181.CrossRefPubMed

Glover, S. (2004). Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(1), 3–24.PubMed

Goldenberg, G., & Spatt, J. (2009). The neural basis of tool use. Brain, 132(6), 1645–1655. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awp080.CrossRefPubMed

Grafton, S. T., Fadiga, L., Arbib, M. A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1997). Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. Neuroimage, 6(4), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.1997.0293.CrossRefPubMed

Heilman, K. M., Rothi, L. J., & Valenstein, E. (1982). Two forms of ideomotor apraxia. Neurology, 32(4), 342–342.CrossRef

Helbig, H. B., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2006). The role of action representations in visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 174(2), 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0443-5.CrossRefPubMed

Helbig, H. B., Steinwender, J., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2010). Action observation can prime visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 200(3–4), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-1953-8.CrossRefPubMed

Hermsdörfer, J., Terlinden, G., Mühlau, M., Goldenberg, G., & Wohlschläger, A. M. (2007). Neural representations of pantomimed and actual tool use: evidence from an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage, 36, T109–T118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.037.CrossRefPubMed

Hoeren, M., Kaller, C. P., Glauche, V., Vry, M. S., Rijntjes, M., Hamzei, F., et al. (2013). Action semantics and movement characteristics engage distinct processing streams during the observation of tool use. Experimental Brain Research, 229(2), 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3610-5.CrossRefPubMed

Hoeren, M., Kümmerer, D., Bormann, T., Beume, L., Ludwig, V. M., Vry, M. S., et al. (2014). Neural bases of imitation and pantomime in acute stroke patients: distinct streams for praxis. Brain, 137(10), 2796–2810. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awu203.CrossRefPubMed

Ishibashi, R., Pobric, G., Saito, S., & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2016). The neural network for tool-related cognition: An activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of 70 neuroimaging contrasts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(3–4), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2016.1188798.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jax, S. A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2010). Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition, 115(2), 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Johnson, S. H., & Grafton, S. T. (2003). From ‘acting on’ to ‘acting with’: The functional anatomy of object-oriented action schemata. In C. Prablanc, D. Pélisson, & Y. Rosetti (Eds.), Progress in brain research (Vol. 142, pp. 127–139). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

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

Johnson-Frey, S. H., Newman-Norlund, R., & Grafton, S. T. (2004). A distributed left hemisphere network active during planning of everyday tool use skills. Cerebral Cortex, 15(6), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh169.CrossRefPubMed

Jouen, A. L., Ellmore, T. M., Madden-Lombardi, C. J., Pallier, C., Dominey, P. F., & Ventre-Dominey, J. (2018). Beyond the word and image: II-Structural and functional connectivity of a common semantic system. NeuroImage, 166, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.039.CrossRefPubMed

Kalénine, S., & Bonthoux, F. (2008). Object manipulability affects children’s and adults’ conceptual processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 667–672.CrossRef

Kalénine, S., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2016). Thematic knowledge, artifact concepts, and the left posterior temporal lobe: Where action and object semantics converge. Cortex, 82, 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.06.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kalénine, S., Buxbaum, L. J., & Coslett, H. B. (2010). Critical brain regions for action recognition: Lesion symptom mapping in left hemisphere stroke. Brain, 133(11), 3269–3280. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awq210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kalénine, S., Mirman, D., Middleton, E. L., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2012). Temporal dynamics of activation of thematic and functional knowledge during conceptual processing of manipulable artifacts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027626.CrossRefPubMed

Kalénine, S., Peyrin, C., Pichat, C., Segebarth, C., Bonthoux, F., & Baciu, M. (2009). The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1152–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.043.CrossRefPubMed

Kellenbach, M. L., Brett, M., & Patterson, K. (2003). Actions speak louder than functions: The importance of manipulability and action in tool representation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321107800.CrossRefPubMed

Lee, C. I., Mirman, D., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2014). Abnormal dynamics of activation of object use information in apraxia: Evidence from eyetracking. Neuropsychologia, 59(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.04.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lewis, J. W. (2006). Cortical networks related to human use of tools. The Neuroscientist, 12(3), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858406288327.CrossRefPubMed

Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults’ concepts. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 130(1), 3.CrossRef

Mahon, B. Z., Milleville, S. C., Negri, GaL., Rumiati, R. I., Caramazza, A., & Martin, A. (2007). Action-related properties shape object representations in the ventral stream. Neuron, 55(3), 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.011.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190143.CrossRefPubMed

McRae, K., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., & Ferretti, T. (2005). A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1174–1184. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193221.CrossRef

Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788–804.CrossRef

Mirman, D., & Graziano, K. M. (2012). Damage to temporo-parietal cortex decreases incidental activation of thematic relations during spoken word comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 50(8), 1990–1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.04.024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mirman, D., Landrigan, J.-F., & Britt, A. E. (2017). Taxonomic and Thematic Semantic Systems. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000092(manuscript in press).CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Myung, J.Y., Blumstein, S. E., Yee, E., Sedivy, J. C., Thompson-Schill, S. L., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2010). Impaired access to manipulation features in Apraxia: Evidence from eyetracking and semantic judgment tasks. Brain and Language, 112(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2009.12.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Myung, J. Y., Blumstein, S. E., & Sedivy, J. C. (2006). Playing on the typewriter, typing on the piano: Manipulation knowledge of objects. Cognition, 98(3), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.010.CrossRefPubMed

Natraj, N., Pella, Y. M., Borghi, A. M., & Wheaton, L. A. (2015). The visual encoding of tool-object affordances. Neuroscience, 310, 512–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.09.060.CrossRefPubMed

Natraj, N., Poole, V., Mizelle, J. C., Flumini, A., Borghi, A. M., & Wheaton, L. A. (2013). Context and hand posture modulate the neural dynamics of tool-object perception. Neuropsychologia, 51(3), 506–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.12.003.CrossRefPubMed

Nelson, K. (1983). The derivation of concepts and categories from event representations. In E. K. Scholnick (Ed.), New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget’s theory (pp. 129–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Oosterhof, N. N., Wiggett, A. J., Diedrichsen, J., Tipper, S. P., & Downing, P. E. (2010). Surface-based information mapping reveals crossmodal vision–action representations in human parietal and occipitotemporal cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 104(2), 1077–1089. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00326.2010.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Osiurak, F., Aubin, G., Allain, P., Jarry, C., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., Richard, I., et al. (2008). Different constraints on grip selection in brain-damaged patients: Object use versus object transport. Neuropsychologia, 46(9), 2431–2434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.03.018.CrossRefPubMed

Pluciennicka, E., Coello, Y., & Kalénine, S. (2016b). Development of implicit processing of thematic and functional similarity relations during manipulable artifact object identification: Evidence from eye-tracking in the Visual World Paradigm. Cognitive Development, 38, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2016.02.001.CrossRef

Pluciennicka, E., Wamain, Y., Coello, Y., & Kalénine, S. (2016a). Impact of action primes on implicit processing of thematic and functional similarity relations: Evidence from eye-tracking. Psychological Research, 80(4), 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0674-9.CrossRefPubMed

Ramayya, A. G., Glasser, M. F., & Rilling, J. K. (2009). A DTI investigation of neural substrates supporting tool use. Cerebral Cortex, 20(3), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp141.CrossRefPubMed

Randerath, J., Goldenberg, G., Spijkers, W., Li, Y., & Hermsdörfer, J. (2010). Different left brain regions are essential for grasping a tool compared with its subsequent use. Neuroimage, 53(1), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.038.CrossRefPubMed

Rizzolatti, G., & Matelli, M. (2003). Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: anatomy and functions. Experimental Brain Research, 153(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-003-1588-0.CrossRefPubMed

Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical Neurophysiology, 120(12), 2008–2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rothi, L. J., Heilman, K. M., & Watson, R. T. (1985). Pantomime comprehension and ideomotor apraxia. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 48(3), 207–210.CrossRef

Rumiati, R. I., Weiss, P. H., Shallice, T., Ottoboni, G., Noth, J., Zilles, K., et al. (2004). Neural basis of pantomiming the use of visually presented objects. Neuroimage, 21(4), 1224–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.11.017.CrossRefPubMed

Schubotz, R. I., Wurm, M. F., Wittmann, M. K., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2014). Objects tell us what action we can expect: Dissociating brain areas for retrieval and exploitation of action knowledge during action observation in fMRI. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 636. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00636.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tarhan, L. Y., Watson, C. E., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2015). Shared and distinct neuroanatomic regions critical for tool-related action production and recognition: Evidence from 131 left-hemisphere stroke patients. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(12), 2491–2511. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00876.CrossRefPubMed

Tsagkaridis, K., Watson, C. E., Jax, S. A., & Buxbaum, L. J. (2014). The role of action representations in thematic object relations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 140. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00140.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830.PubMed

Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 769–800.CrossRef

Tunik, E., Frey, S. H., & Grafton, S. T. (2005). Virtual lesions of the anterior intraparietal area disrupt goal-dependent online adjustments of grasp. Nature Neuroscience, 8(4), 505. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1430.CrossRefPubMed

Tunik, E., Ortigue, S., Adamovich, S. V., & Grafton, S. T. (2008). Differential recruitment of anterior intraparietal sulcus and superior parietal lobule during visually guided grasping revealed by electrical neuroimaging. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(50), 13615–13620. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3303-08.2008.CrossRefPubMed

Valyear, K. F., Cavina-Pratesi, C., Stiglick, A. J., & Culham, J. C. (2007). Does tool-related fMRI activity within the intraparietal sulcus reflect the plan to grasp? Neuroimage, 36, T94–T108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.031.CrossRefPubMed

Vingerhoets, G. (2014). Contribution of the posterior parietal cortex in reaching, grasping, and using objects and tools. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(MAR), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00151.CrossRef

Vingerhoets, G., Acke, F., Vandemaele, P., & Achten, E. (2009). Tool responsive regions in the posterior parietal cortex: Effect of differences in motor goal and target object during imagined transitive movements. NeuroImage, 47(4), 1832–1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.05.100.CrossRefPubMed

Wamain, Y., Pluciennicka, E., & Kalénine, S. (2014). Temporal dynamics of action perception: Differences on ERP evoked by object-related and non-object-related actions. Neuropsychologia, 63, 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.034.CrossRefPubMed

Wamain, Y., Pluciennicka, E., & Kalénine, S. (2015). A saw is first identified as an object used on wood: ERP evidence for temporal differences between Thematic and Functional similarity relations. Neuropsychologia, 71, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.02.034.CrossRefPubMed

Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829–854.CrossRef

Yee, E., Drucker, D. M., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2010). fMRI-adaptation evidence of overlapping neural representations for objects related in function or manipulation. NeuroImage, 50(2), 753–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.12.036.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Left inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortices mediate the effect of action observation on semantic processing of objects: evidence from rTMS
Auteurs: Francesco De Bellis
Alfonso Magliacano
Laura Sagliano
Massimiliano Conson
Dario Grossi
Luigi Trojano
Publicatiedatum: 08-11-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1117-1

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2020

Explicit knowledge of sensory non-redundancy can reduce the strength of multisensory integration

Perceived duration of auditory oddballs: test of a novel pitch-window hypothesis

You ≠ me: individual differences in the structure of social cognition

Not scene learning, but attentional processing is superior in team sport athletes and action video game players

An attentional blink in the absence of spatial attention: a cost of awareness?

Learning in the absence of overt practice: a novel (previously unseen) stimulus can trigger retrieval of an unpracticed response