2001
DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0878
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Functional Brain Mapping of Monkey Tool Use

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
88
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 198 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
1
88
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, Iriki and co-workers [33,51] showed direct evidences of tool use-induced anatomical modifications in the temporal and parietal cortices, and the development of new cortico-cortical connections. Furthermore, this plasticity process appears to involve regions that are crucial for hand grasping [52]. In an evolutionary perspective, it is possible that cortical areas more susceptible to modifications as a result of tool use became more specialized for this function and separated from those just involved in sensorimotor transformation for hand grasping [53,54], supporting the idea that the use of tools required brain changes that determined the appearance of a new network.…”
Section: Conclusion and Evolutionary Remarksmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Interestingly, Iriki and co-workers [33,51] showed direct evidences of tool use-induced anatomical modifications in the temporal and parietal cortices, and the development of new cortico-cortical connections. Furthermore, this plasticity process appears to involve regions that are crucial for hand grasping [52]. In an evolutionary perspective, it is possible that cortical areas more susceptible to modifications as a result of tool use became more specialized for this function and separated from those just involved in sensorimotor transformation for hand grasping [53,54], supporting the idea that the use of tools required brain changes that determined the appearance of a new network.…”
Section: Conclusion and Evolutionary Remarksmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…However, this is an unlikely hypothesis for the mirror neuron system in the light of several recent studies demonstrating its responsiveness to 'unnatural stimuli', such as the observation of tool use (Ferrari et al, 2005;Järveläinen et al, 2004;Obayashi et al, 2001) and the sound of paper ripping (Kohler et al, 2002), and of studies showing that the responsivity of the mirror neuron system varies with expertise in the observed action domain (e.g. Calvo-Merino et al, 2005;Lahav et al, 2007).…”
Section: Mapping Observed To Executed Actionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Calvo-Merino et al, 2005;Lahav et al, 2007). If the development of imitation, and the mirror neuron system, is instead experience-dependent, then it may draw on three kinds of experience: unimodal sensory (Ferrari et al, 2005), unimodal motor (Calvo-Merino et al, 2006) or sensorimotor experience (Heyes, 2001;Heyes et al, 2005;Keysers and Perrett, 2004;Lahav et al, 2007;Obayashi et al, 2001). Unimodal sensory experience is provided by passive observation of an action, whereas unimodal motor experience arises from repeated execution of an action.…”
Section: Mapping Observed To Executed Actionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There are two hurdles that make this difficult. First, the complexities of many human behaviors, such as use of tools or communicative gestures have relatively few counterparts in the non-human primates [Obayashi et al, 2001[Obayashi et al, , 2002. Second, the non-invasive methods available for human neurophysiology lack the temporal resolution to establish neural selectivity analogous to what can be done with single unit recordings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%