2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Making sense of objects lying around: How contextual objects shape brain activity during action observation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Unlike the omnipresence of ATL hub, the spoke regions participated in a content-related fashion: In Experiment 1, extensive clusters of the frontoparietal action system (the pre- and post-central gyri, inferior frontal gyrus, and parietal lobules) were modulated by semantic congruity about actions. These areas correspond to the typical lesion sites seen in apraxia patients (Binkofski and Buxbaum, 2013) and the voluminous fMRI literature about motor imagery and action knowledge (e.g., El-Sourani et al., 2018; Hétu et al., 2013; van Elk et al., 2014; Wurm and Lingnau, 2015). By comparison, in Experiment 2, two key regions of the medial place-related system, the LG and RSC, were recruited to process semantic congruency about places.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…Unlike the omnipresence of ATL hub, the spoke regions participated in a content-related fashion: In Experiment 1, extensive clusters of the frontoparietal action system (the pre- and post-central gyri, inferior frontal gyrus, and parietal lobules) were modulated by semantic congruity about actions. These areas correspond to the typical lesion sites seen in apraxia patients (Binkofski and Buxbaum, 2013) and the voluminous fMRI literature about motor imagery and action knowledge (e.g., El-Sourani et al., 2018; Hétu et al., 2013; van Elk et al., 2014; Wurm and Lingnau, 2015). By comparison, in Experiment 2, two key regions of the medial place-related system, the LG and RSC, were recruited to process semantic congruency about places.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…Caspers, Zilles, Laird, & Eickhoff, 2010;van Overwalle & Beatens, 2009). To this end, action observers can exploit various sources of information, including not only moving body parts (i.e., manipulation movements) and manipulated objects but also various contextual factors, such as the room , the actor (Hrkać, Wurm, & Schubotz, 2014), additional objects in a scene (contextual objects [COs]; El-Sourani, Wurm, Trempler, Fink, & Schubotz, 2018), and spatial relations between objects and agents (Brozzoli, Gentile, Bergouignan, & Ehrsson, 2013;Costantini, Committeri, & Sinigaglia, 2011). Although the influence of contextual information on object recognition has been intensively investigated (Barenholtz, 2014;Zimmermann, Schnier, & Lappe, 2010;Hayes, Nadel, & Ryan, 2007;Bar, 2004;Boyce, Pollatsek, & Rayner, 1989), its impact on action understanding has so far been addressed by only a few studies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Future studies have to examine how much real object or contextual information would further improve this performance level. Especially, object information provides an efficient restriction on to-be-expected manipulations [6][7][8][9][10][11]. It remains to be tested how non-spatial object information potentially interacts with the exploitation of static and dynamic spatial relations between objects involved in actions.…”
Section: Plos Onementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Though in recent years, some progress has been made towards computationally more concrete models of the mechanisms and processes underlying action recognition [5], it still remains largely unresolved how the brain accomplishes this complex task. Prediction of actions can rely on different sources of information, including manipulated objects [6][7][8][9], contextual objects [10,11], movements [12], context [13] and features regarding the actress or actor [14]. A major aim of ongoing research is to disentangle the respective contribution and relevance of these sources of information feeding human action prediction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%