Memory for pantomimed actions versus actions with real objects

Abstract

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.

Cortical regions recruited for complex active-learning strategies and action planning exhibit rapid reactivation during memory retrieval

“…These findings extend previous reports of strategy-related and action-related reactivation during retrieval (e.g., Johnson & Rugg, 2007; Nilsson, et al, 2000; Nyberg, et al, 2001; Senkfor, 2008; Senkfor, et al, 2002). As noted above, the extent to which these previous experiments provided evidence for reactivation as opposed to stimulus-specific mental imagery or other more general retrieval phenomena is uncertain.…”

“…Similar reactivation patterns have been identified for actions that were initially performed, watched, and imagined (Heil et al, 1999; Senkfor, Van Petten, & Kutas, 2002), indicating that similar information is stored and reactivated in these conditions. However, reactivation differences have been noted between actions originally performed with objects versus pantomimed actions (Senkfor, 2008), suggesting that activity attributed to reactivation might at least partly reflect object-cued imagination of action plans rather than true reactivation of stored action plans. In rodents, activity coding for the animal’s location in space during learning is replayed later during retrieval and also during periods of behavioral quiescence such as sleep (e.g., Wilson & McNaughton, 1994), suggesting recapitulation of relatively complex episodic information concerning the original event independent from object-cued activity.…”

Sememe Heredity of Action Semantics: Evidence From the Priming Effect and Prospective Memory

“…To be specific, external motor encoding and internal imaging-performance encoding have a shared process, which includes movement, dynamic motion, and visual information (Leynes and Kakadia, 2013). Besides, there is no significant difference in cued recall (Engelkamp, 1995) or activation of the motor cortex (Senkfor, 2008) between the above two encoding conditions. In comparison with verbal retrieval, motor retrieval did not improve recall performance significantly ).…”

The impact of iconic gestures on foreign language word learning and its neural substrate

“…In fact, these studies have shown activity in motor brain regions during explicit memory for objects and actions [Leynes and Bink, 2002;Leynes et al, 2006;Nilsson et al, 2000;Nyberg et al, 2001;Senkfor, 2008;Senkfor et al, 2002;Van Mier, 2000]. So far, however, it is still not clear to which extent the behaviorally observed enhancement of verbal memory is related to activity in motor-related areas, and if so whether this reflects a motor trace of the physical action or a motor image connected to the words' semantics or possibly both.…”