Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging

Boronat, Consuelo B.; Buxbaum, Laurel J.; Coslett, H. Branch; Tang, Kathy Z.; Saffran, Eleanor M.; Kimberg, Daniel Y.; Detre, John A.

doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.11.001

Cited by 239 publications

(200 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

183

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For manipulable objects, however, the difference between the function and action tasks lay in posterior parietal rather than frontal cortex. An fMRI experiment by Boronat et al (2005) used a similar design, with similar results -that judgments about action properties isolated a region of posterior parietal rather than frontal premotor cortex. The two hemodynamic studies differed from the current study in two major regards.…”

Section: Pantomimed Action Versus Actions With Real Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory for pantomimed actions versus actions with real objects

Senkfor

2008

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A substantial literature indicates that human actions during object use and pantomimed object use are not identical, and can be differentially affected by brain damage such that apraxic patients can be more impaired in performing actions with objects or at pantomiming such actions. A different literature suggests that memory retrieval can involve reinstating or recapitulating some of the same brain activity that occurred during the original event. The current experiment examines memory for pantomimed actions versus those conducted with real objects to determine if accuracy or brain electrical activity differs during the recollection of episodes involving pantomime versus actual object use. Across two sessions, participants were presented with images of studied objects and judged whether each object was studied by (1) performing an action, (2) watching the experimenter perform an action, (3) imagining an action, or (4) the nonmotoric control task of estimating the object's cost. The study phases preceding this source memory test differed across sessions: in one, participants were presented with real objects and estimated its cost or performed, watched, or imagined typical actions with the objects; in the other they viewed images of each object and estimated its cost or performed, imagined, or watched pantomimes of object use. Although source accuracy was the same across sessions, event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded during memory retrieval differed for memory for actions with real objects versus their pantomime equivalents. Retrieval-phase activity did not differ for cost-encoded objects. The real-object/pantomime difference in brain activity was maximal over left frontal and frontocentral cortex, suggesting differential engagement of motor cortex during memory for real actions versus pantomimed actions.

show abstract

Section: Pantomimed Action Versus Actions With Real Objectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory for pantomimed actions versus actions with real objects

Senkfor

2008

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, areas associated with higher-level visuo-spatial processing, language, motor and somatosensory functions contained sufficient information for category identification across stimulus formats. For example, the LIPL, which has been implicated in manipulation knowledge, was previously shown to activate in response to both word and picture stimuli (Boronat et al, 2005).…”

Section: Semantic Organizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commonality of neural representations of words and pictures

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work we explore whether the patterns of brain activity associated with thinking about concrete objects are dependent on stimulus presentation format, whether an object is referred to by a written or pictorial form. Multi-voxel pattern analysis methods were applied to brain imaging (fMRI) data to identify the item category associated with brief viewings of each of 10 words (naming 5 tools and 5 dwellings) and, separately, with brief viewings of each of 10 pictures (line drawings) of the objects named by the words. These methods were able to identify the category of the picture the participant was viewing, based on neural activation patterns observed during word-viewing, and identify the category of the word the participant was viewing, based on neural activation patterns observed during picture-viewing, using data from only that participant or only from other participants. These results provide an empirical demonstration of object category identification across stimulus formats and across participants. In addition, we were able to identify the category of the word that the participant was viewing based on the patterns of neural activation generated during word-viewing by that participant or by all other participants. Similarly, we were able to identify with even higher accuracy the category of the picture the participant was viewing, based on the patterns of neural activation demonstrated during picture-viewing by that participant or by all other participants. The brain locations that were important for category identification were similar across participants and were distributed throughout the cortex where various object properties might be neurally represented. These findings indicate consistent triggering of semantic representations using different stimulus formats and suggest the presence of stable, distributed, and identifiable neural states that are common to pictorial and verbal input referring to object categories.

show abstract

“…Viewing or naming of tools without motor execution also activates the left PPC, mainly in the IPL, and premotor cortex, together with the regions representing specific object categories in the temporal cortex (Chao et al 1999;Chao and Martin 2000;Noppeney et al 2006;Mahon et al 2007;Mruczek et al 2013;Peeters et al 2013). The IPL has been repeatedly shown to be integral to the knowledge on 5 skilled tool-use or object manipulation (Kellenbach et al 2003;Boronat et al 2005;Ishibashi et al 2011) with distinct functional connectivities with the premotor and temporal regions (Garcea and Mahon 2014). A right visual field advantage for the visual processing of tools (Garcea et al 2012) and a tool-selective response in the left IPL independent of visual field were reported , which is consistent with left hemisphere 10 dominance for tool-selective processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hand-independent representation of tool-use pantomimes in the left anterior intraparietal cortex

Ogawa

Imai

2016

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous neuropsychological studies of ideomotor apraxia (IMA) indicated impairments in pantomime actions for tool use for both right and left hands following lesions of parieto-premotor cortices in the left hemisphere. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA), we tested the hypothesis that 5 the left parieto-premotor cortices are involved in the storage or retrieval of hand-independent representation of tool use actions. In the fMRI scanner, one of three kinds of tools was displayed in pictures or letters, and the participants made pantomimes of the use of these tools using the right hand for the picture stimuli or with the left hand for the letters. We then used MVPA to classify which kind of tool the subjects were pantomiming. 10Whole-brain searchlight analysis revealed successful decoding using the activities largely in the contralateral primary sensorimotor region, ipsilateral cerebellum, and bilateral early visual area, which may reflect differences in low-level sensorimotor components for three types of pantomimes. Furthermore, a successful cross-classification between the right and left hands was possible using the activities of the left inferior parietal lobule (IPL) near the 15 junction of the anterior intraparietal sulcus. Our finding indicates that the left anterior intraparietal cortex plays an important role in the production of tool-use pantomimes in a hand-independent manner, and independent of stimuli modality.

show abstract

Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging

Cited by 239 publications

References 49 publications

Memory for pantomimed actions versus actions with real objects

Memory for pantomimed actions versus actions with real objects

Commonality of neural representations of words and pictures

Hand-independent representation of tool-use pantomimes in the left anterior intraparietal cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About