Neuromagnetic hand and foot motor sources recruited during action verb processing

Klepp, Anne; Weissler, Hannah; Niccolai, Valentina; Terhalle, Anselm; Geisler, Hans; Schnitzler, Alfons; Biermann-Ruben, Katja

doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2013.12.001

Cited by 38 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the occurrence of language-motor interference effects it is important that motor preparatory responses start early and consecutively with language processing, which was confirmed in all experimental conditions. This may also be the reason why no early differences emerged in the comparison of event-related fields within 350 ms following the verb onset, despite previous studies reporting (somatotopic) effects (Pulvermüller et al, 2001;Boulenger et al, 2012;Moseley et al, 2013;Klepp et al, 2014).…”

Section: Meg Power Modulations and Semantic Interferencecontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…In the stimulus-locked analysis, the latency (350 to 750 ms after word onset) of the significant effect between hand and foot verbs with high imageability corresponds to a processing window of concurrent semantic processing and motor preparation, while earlier clusters did not reach significance. This can be seen in the light of transient differences in early semantic processing in the motor system phase-locked to the word onset around 200 ms (Pulvermüller et al, 2001;Boulenger et al, 2012;Klepp et al, 2014) that are too subtle to be detected in the presence of a motor execution task. Nevertheless, the latency of the significant effects of around 400 ms is in the time window classically described for semantic processing (Kutas and Hillyard, 1984).…”

Section: Meg Power Modulations and Semantic Interferencementioning

confidence: 95%

“…raten (to guess). These sets were the result of a multi-step rating and matching procedure (compare Klepp et al, 2014). While verb frequency was determined using a database (Leipzig Corpora Collection, LCC, Biemann et al, 2007, available at http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de), body part relatedness, verb familiarity and imageability were assessed in separate ratings (each n = 30).…”

Section: Stimulus Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Language–motor interference reflected in MEG beta oscillations

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The involvement of the brain's motor system in action-related language processing can lead to overt interference with simultaneous action execution. The aim of the current study was to find evidence for this behavioural interference effect and to investigate its neurophysiological correlates using oscillatory MEG analysis. Subjects performed a semantic decision task on single action verbs, describing actions executed with the hands or the feet, and abstract verbs. Right hand button press responses were given for concrete verbs only. Therefore, longer response latencies for hand compared to foot verbs should reflect interference. We found interference effects to depend on verb imageability: overall response latencies for hand verbs did not differ significantly from foot verbs. However, imageability interacted with effector: while response latencies to hand and foot verbs with low imageability were equally fast, those for highly imageable hand verbs were longer than for highly imageable foot verbs. The difference is reflected in motor-related MEG beta band power suppression, which was weaker for highly imageable hand verbs compared with highly imageable foot verbs. This provides a putative neuronal mechanism for language-motor interference where the involvement of cortical hand motor areas in hand verb processing interacts with the typical beta suppression seen before movements. We found that the facilitatory effect of higher imageability on action verb processing time is perturbed when verb and motor response relate to the same body part. Importantly, this effect is accompanied by neurophysiological effects in beta band oscillations. The attenuated power suppression around the time of movement, reflecting decreased cortical excitability, seems to result from motor simulation during action-related language processing. This is in line with embodied cognition theories.

show abstract

Section: Meg Power Modulations and Semantic Interferencecontrasting

confidence: 55%

Section: Meg Power Modulations and Semantic Interferencementioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Stimulus Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language–motor interference reflected in MEG beta oscillations

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, in an electrophysiological study that involved subliminal presentation of verbs for arm/hand actions, Boulenger et al (2008b) found that the stimuli modulated the readiness potential (an index of motor preparation) associated with subsequent reaching movements, and also influenced the kinematics of those movements. In addition, several investigations have employed magnetoencephalography to demonstrate that action verbs engage body-part-congruent precentral motor areas with remarkable speed, in some cases as soon as 100 ms after the words can be uniquely identified (Shtyrov et al, 2014; see also Pulvermüller et al, 2005b;Moseley et al, 2013;Klepp et al, 2014; for a critique see Papeo & Caramazza, 2014). Taken together, these findings show that action verbs can trigger somatotopic frontal activity in an apparently automatic manner, without the need for deep semantic processing.…”

Section: Processing Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 77%

Are the motor features of verb meanings represented in the precentral motor cortices? Yes, but within the context of a flexible, multilevel architecture for conceptual knowledge

Kemmerer

2015

Psychon Bull Rev

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most controversial issues in the cognitive neuroscience literature on concepts is whether the motor features of verb meanings are represented in the precentral motor cortices. Much of this debate stems from the fact that the empirical data are mixed with regard to (1) whether action verbs engage the precentral motor cortices in the predicted ways, (2) whether that engagement is automatic, and (3) whether it is essential for comprehension. I argue that the available data can best be accommodated by theoretical models which assume that conceptual knowledge is underpinned by a flexible, multilevel architecture that includes not only low-level modality-specific systems for perception, action, and emotion, but also high-level cross-modal convergence/divergence zones, as well as the statistical cooccurrence patterns of word-forms across discourses. From the perspective of such pluralistic approaches, the motor features of verb meanings are indeed represented in the precentral motor cortices, but their retrieval is modulated by task and context and is not always necessary for word comprehension.

show abstract

“…Therefore, the patterns of sensorimotor resonance underlying the observed effect would be engaging right‐hand (i.e., typically left‐hemisphere) mechanisms in all MaVs. Indeed, in right‐handed samples, MaVs and other action verbs are known to predominantly engage left‐sided motor regions (e.g., Boulenger, Shtyrov, & Pulvermuller, ; Mollo et al, ; Shtyrov et al, ; Willems, Hagoort, & Casasanto, ), with those denoting bimanual (or bipedal) actions eliciting right‐sided activation in addition to significant left‐hemisphere motor resonance (Hauk & Pulvermüller, ; Klepp et al, ). Tentatively, then, effector‐specific facilitation during handwriting could be presumed operative for dominant‐hand actions in both unimanual and bimanual MaVs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Embodied Penman: Effector‐Specific Motor–Language Integration During Handwriting

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have illuminated how processing manual action verbs (MaVs) affects the programming or execution of concurrent hand movements. Here, to circumvent key confounds in extant designs, we conducted the first assessment of motor–language integration during handwriting—a task in which linguistic and motoric processes are co‐substantiated. Participants copied MaVs, non‐manual action verbs, and non‐action verbs as we collected measures of motor programming and motor execution. Programming latencies were similar across conditions, but execution was faster for MaVs than for the other categories, regardless of whether word meanings were accessed implicitly or explicitly. In line with the Hand‐Action‐Network Dynamic Language Embodiment (HANDLE) model, such findings suggest that effector‐congruent verbs can prime manual movements even during highly automatized tasks in which motoric and verbal processes are naturally intertwined. Our paradigm opens new avenues for fine‐grained explorations of embodied language processes.

show abstract

Neuromagnetic hand and foot motor sources recruited during action verb processing

Cited by 38 publications

References 61 publications

Language–motor interference reflected in MEG beta oscillations

Language–motor interference reflected in MEG beta oscillations

Are the motor features of verb meanings represented in the precentral motor cortices? Yes, but within the context of a flexible, multilevel architecture for conceptual knowledge

The Embodied Penman: Effector‐Specific Motor–Language Integration During Handwriting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About