It has been proposed that actions are intrinsically linked to perception and that imagining, observing, preparing, or in any way representing an action excites the motor programs used to execute that same action. There is neurophysiological evidence that certain brain regions involved in executing actions are activated by the mere observation of action (the so-called "mirror system;" ). However, it is unknown whether this mirror system causes interference between observed and simultaneously executed movements. In this study we test the hypothesis that, because of the overlap between action observation and execution, observed actions should interfere with incongruous executed actions. Subjects made arm movements while observing either a robot or another human making the same or qualitatively different arm movements. Variance in the executed movement was measured as an index of interference to the movement. The results demonstrate that observing another human making incongruent movements has a significant interference effect on executed movements. However, we found no evidence that this interference effect occurred when subjects observed a robotic arm making incongruent movements. These results suggest that the simultaneous activation of the overlapping neural networks that process movement observation and execution infers a measurable cost to motor control.

A recently emerging view sees language understanding as closely linked to sensory and motor processes. The present study investigates this issue by examining the influence of processing action verbs and concrete nouns on the execution of a reaching movement. Fine-grained analyses of movement kinematics revealed that relative to nouns, processing action verbs significantly affects overt motor performance. Within 200 msec after onset, processing action verbs interferes with a concurrent reaching movement. By contrast, the same words assist reaching movement when processed before movement onset. The cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior provides unambiguous evidence that action words and motor action share common cortical representations and could thus suggest that cortical motor regions are indeed involved in action word retrieval.

Prehension involves processing information in two hypothesized visuomotor channels: one for extrinsic object properties (e.g., the spatial location of objects) and one for intrinsic objects properties (e.g., shape and size). The present study asked how the two motor components that correspond to these channels (transport and grasp, respectively) are related. One way to address this question is to create a situation where unexpected changes occur at the input level of one of the visuomotor channels, and to observe how the movement reorganizes. If transport and grasp are independent components, then changing the object location, for example, should affect only the transport, not the grasp component. Subjects were requested to reach, grasp and lift as accurately as possible one of three dowels using the distal pads of the thumb and index finger. On certain trials, upon movement initiation towards the middle dowel, the dowel was made to instantaneously change its location to one of the two other positions, requiring the subject to reorient the hand to the new dowel location. Results consisted of comparing the movement characteristics of the transport and grasp components of these perturbed movements with appropriate control movements. Kinematics of the wrist trajectory showed fast adjustments, within 100 ms, to the change of dowel position. This duration seems to correspond to the minimum delay required within the visuomotor system for visual and/or proprioceptive reafferents to influence the ongoing movement. In addition, these delays are much shorter than has been found for conditions where object location changes before movement initiation (approximately 300 ms). The faster times may relate to the dynamic character of the deviant limb position signals, with the only constraint being the physiological delays for visual and kinaesthetic signals to influence the movement. A spatiotemporal variability analysis of the movement trajectories for non-perturbed trials showed variability to be greatest during the acceleration part of the movement, interpreted as due to control by a relatively inaccurate directional coding mechanism. Control during the deceleration phase, marked by low trajectory variability, was seen to be due to a sensorimotor process, using motor output signals, and resulting in an optimized trajectory supporting a successful grasp. Analysis of the grasp component of prehension showed that perturbing object location influenced the movement of the fingers suggesting a kinematic coupling of the two components. However, forthcoming work shows that, when object size changes, and location remains constant, there is a clear temporal dissociation of the two components of prehension.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

1. Subjects were instructed to reach and grasp cylindrical objects, using a precision grip. The objects were two concentric dowels made of translucent material placed at 35 cm from the subject. The inner ("small") dowel was 10 cm high and 1.5 cm in diameter. The outer ("large") dowel was 6 cm high and 6 cm in diameter. Prehension movements were monitored using a Selspot system. The displacement of a marker placed at the wrist level was used as an index for the transport of the hand at the location of the object. Markers placed at the tips of the thumb and the index finger were used for measuring the size of aperture of the finger grip. 2. Kinematics of transport and grasp components were computed from the filtered displacement signals. Movement time (MT), time to peak velocity (TPV) and time to peak deceleration (TPD) of the wrist, time to peak velocity of grip aperture (TGV), time to maximum grip aperture (TGA) were the main parameters used for comparing the movements in different conditions. Spatial paths of the wrist, thumb and index markers were reconstructed in two dimensions. Variability of the spatial paths over repeated trials was computed as the surface of the ellipses defined by X and Y standard deviations from the mean path. 3. Computer controlled illumination of one of the dowels was the signal for reaching toward that dowel. Blocks of trials were made to the small dowel and to the large dowel. Mean MT during blocked trials was 550 ms. The acceleration phase of the movements (measured by parameter TPV) represented 33% of MT. About half of MT (52%) was spent after TPD in a low velocity phase while the hand was approaching the object. This kinematic pattern was not influenced by whether movements were directed at small or large dowels. 4. Grip aperture progressively increased during transport of the hand. TGA corresponded to about 60% of MT, that is, maximum grip aperture was reached during the low velocity phase of transport. Following TGA, fingers closed around the object until contact was made. This pattern of grip formation differed whether the movement was directed at the large or the small dowel: TGA occurred often earlier for the small dowel, and the size of the maximum grip aperture was larger for the large dowel. Variability of both the wrist and finger spatial paths was larger during the first half of MT, and tended to become very low as the hand approached the dowels.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

The aim of the present study was to examine the timing of different responses given simultaneously to a single event, the sudden displacement of a visual object occurring at the onset of the grasping movement directed at that object. The subjects were requested to correct their movement in order to reach accurately for the object and to signal the time at which they became aware of its displacement by a simple vocal utterance (Tah!). The onset of the motor adjustment was measured using kinematic landmarks obtained from the hand trajectory. Movements executed during trials where the object was displaced had an earlier peak in acceleration (107 ms) than movements executed during control trials (120 ms). By contrast, the vocal signal occurred 420 ms following object displacement, that was more than 300 ms after the onset of the motor correction. Control experiments were performed in order to verify the influence of possible interferences between the two tasks. Motor corrections performed without vocal utterance had the same timing as when the vocal signal was produced. Vocal signals produced in response to object's displacements but in the absence of reaching movements had the same latency as when movements were performed. We conclude from these results that the two responses were generated independently of each other. Assuming that the vocal responses in this experiment did signal the subject's awareness, the observed delay between motor corrections and these responses suggests that neural activity must be processed during a significant and quantifiable amount of time before it can give rise to conscious experience. This dissociation between motor responses and awareness in normal subjects is discussed in the light of clinical cases where overt behaviour and conscious experience are dissociated by cerebral lesions.