Motor resonance meets motor performance

Abstract

The aim of the present work is to explore which of two different models better explains facilitation/interference effects when participants have to conditionally react to an observed action with a movement. The Dimensional Overlap model assumes two parallel routes, an automatic route and a rule-based one, that interact only when the stimulus-set and the response-set share some dimensions. In the alternative model, a motor resonance for rule-based reaction, the automatic visuo-motor transformation is always an obligatory step that provides the correct categorization of the observed action as the input for the rule-based route, thus linking the two routes in a serial fashion. We explicitly tested which of the hypotheses fits better the data by asking participants to perform one of two different actions in a two-choice reaction paradigm. In one condition participants were required to perform the opposite action compared to the one they saw (COUNTER task: see A→do B, see B→do A), while in the other they were required to perform two actions that did not share any dimension with the stimulus-set (NEUTRAL task: see A→do C, see B→do D). We predicted an advantage for the NEUTRAL task if the Dimensional Overlap model was correct, while a similar performance was foreseen if the motor resonance-based model was correct. Since the interpretation of these results was not straightforward, we conducted a distributional analysis of participants' response accuracies in order to understand whether a serial or a general parallel model explained better the data. We found clear evidence that participants responded above chance before the motor representation of the action observed was activated. We conclude that two separate systems in the human brain can transform observed actions in own motor representations. One is stimulus-driven, while the second is rule-driven. Likely, their activity is mutually independent along parallel pathways.

When the brain changes its mind: Oscillatory dynamics of conflict processing and response switching in a flanker task during alcohol challenge

“…It has been demonstrated in numerous studies probing a range of functions including oculomotor control [ 92 ], and object affordance [ 93 ]. Application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) along with ERPs and MEPs has provided complementary evidence on changes in motor excitability and the relative timing of engagement of cognitive control and switching of response plans [ 26 , 28 , 94 – 96 ]. Furthermore, studies of language indicate that words automatically trigger generic processing for meaning as it is impossible to decide not to understand a familiar word in one’s own language [ 97 ].…”

Visual recognition of words learned with gestures induces motor resonance in the forearm muscles

“…This term was coined in parallel with the discovery of mirror neurons 51 , 52 , i.e., neurons that become active both when individuals performs an action themselves and when they observe another individual performing the same action 53 , 54 . The visuomotor transformation at the base of this effect has been referred to as motor simulation or resonance 55 . According to Rizzolatti 56 , MR is the key to successful social interaction.…”

Connectivity by the Frontal Aslant Tract (FAT) explains local functional specialization of the superior and inferior frontal gyri in humans while choosing predictive over reactive strategies: a tractography-guided TMS study

“…The concept of parallel channels in the action system that mediate bottom-up (in this case the reactive strategy) and top-down (the predictive strategy in our protocol), that compete for motor output, is well established in several models of the action system (Kornblum et al, 1990;Ridderinkhof et al, 2004;Cisek and Kalaska, 2010;McBride et al, 2012). Several lines of empirical evidence in human neurophysiology (Michelet et al, 2010;Barchiesi and Cattaneo, 2013a;Ubaldi et al, 2015) and human behavior (Van Zoest and Donk, 2006;Barchiesi and Cattaneo, 2015) confirm that top-down control and bottom-up sensorimotor processes seem to coexist up to the very distal phases of action production.…”