Prediction of human actions: Expertise and task‐related effects on neural activation of the action observation network

Abstract

The action observation network (AON) is supposed to play a crucial role when athletes anticipate the effect of others' actions in sports such as tennis. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to explore whether motor expertise leads to a differential activation pattern within the AON during effect anticipation and whether spatial and motor anticipation tasks are associated with a differential activation pattern within the AON depending on participant expertise level. Expert (N=16) and novice (N=16) tennis players observed video clips depicting forehand strokes with the instruction to either indicate the predicted direction of ball flight (spatial anticipation) or to decide on an appropriate response to the observed action (motor anticipation). The experts performed better than novices on both tennis anticipation tasks, with the experts showing stronger neural activation in areas of the AON, namely, the superior parietal lobe, the intraparietal sulcus, the inferior frontal gyrus, and the cerebellum. When novices were contrasted with experts, motor anticipation resulted in stronger activation of the ventral premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, and the superior parietal lobe than spatial anticipation task did. In experts, the comparison of motor and spatial anticipation revealed no increased activation. We suggest that the stronger activation of areas in the AON during the anticipation of action effects in experts reflects their use of the more fine-tuned motor representations they have acquired and improved during years of training. Furthermore, results suggest that the neural processing of different anticipation tasks depends on the expertise level.

The influence of motor expertise on the brain activity of motor task performance: A meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies

“…On the other hand, motor training might induce the automation of task performance and simplify the motor planning process, thereby decreasing activity in the PPC (e.g., Petrini et al, 2011). In the current study, motor experts showed a stronger PPC effect as compared with novices when performing trained actions (Bernardi et al, 2013;Pau et al, 2013), observing other people doing the (Haslinger et al, 2005), or predicting object movement on the basis of training experience (Balser et al, 2014). This is in line with the former view and implies that motor experts, after intensive training, may be better at integrating somatosensory, auditory, and visual information in location monitoring and motor adjustment (Baeck et al, Note: The coordinates of the effects are in the Talairach space .…”

“…Recent research has indicated that motor expertise influences the brain activity of motor execution (e.g., Bernardi et al, 2013;Meister et al, 2005), motor observation (e.g., Kim et al, 2011;Olsson & Lundström, 2013;Pilgramm, Lorey, Stark, Munzert, Vaitl, & Zentgraf, 2010;Stout et al, 2011;, motor imagery or planning (e.g., Chang et al, 2011;Milton, Solodkin, Hlustík, & Small, 2007;Wei & Luo, 2010), motor prediction (e.g., Abreu et al, 2012;Balser et al, 2014;, and even the comprehension of action language (Beilock, Lyons, MattarellaMicke, Nusbaum, & Small, 2008;Lyons et al, 2010;Tomasino, Maieron, Guatto, Fabbro, & Rumiati, 2013). However, the findings are inconsistent.…”

“…Several recent studies have found that compared with novices, motor experts showed reduced brain activity in the ventral and dorsal premotor cortex, supplementary motor area (SMA), superior parietal lobule (SPL), anterior cingulate cortex, basal ganglia, and cerebellum during motor tasks, and this may suggest enhanced brain functions in motor performance (e.g., Balser et al, 2014;Chang et al, 2011;Haslinger et al, 2004;Milton et al, 2007;Pau, Jahn, Sakreida, Domin, & Lotze, 2013;Petrini et al, 2011;Wright, Bishop, Jackson, & Abernethy, 2010). For instance, Milton et al (2007) investigated the motor planning of expert golfers during pre-shot routine.…”

An action-incongruent secondary task modulates prediction accuracy in experienced performers: evidence for motor simulation

“…Second, during action prediction, externally evoked activation of the motor cortex was shown to lead to an increase in the amplitude of muscles involved in the observed action relative to baseline (Aglioti et al, 2008;Tomeo et al, 2012). Third, areas of the brain known to be part of the action observation network also differentiated across novice and experts (in tennis) during prediction of action outcomes (Balser et al, 2014). Fourth, action predictions also improved following training without vision on a dart-throwing task (Mulligan and Hodges, 2014).…”

Using the ‘Expert Performance Approach’ as a Framework for Examining and Enhancing Skill Learning: Improving Understanding of How Experts Learn

“…McRobert, Ward, Eccles, & Williams, 2011;Roca, Ford, McRobert, & Williams, 2013). Neurophysiological techniques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can be employed to identify and relate areas of brain activity to performance (e.g., Balser et al, 2014;Dennis, Rowe, Williams, & Milne, in press;Wright, Bishop, Jackson, & Abernethy, 2010. Psycho-physiological measures such as pupil diameter, inter-beat heart rate intervals, electromyography (EMG), and galvanic skin response may be recorded to examine changes in mental effort or stress/anxiety as a function of skill on the task (e.g., Vater, Roca, & Williams, 2015).…”