Tool use kinematics across different modes of execution. Implications for action representation and apraxia

Hermsdörfer, Joachim; Li, Yong; Randerath, Jennifer; Roby-Brami, Agnès; Goldenberg, Georg

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.10.010

Cited by 55 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, healthy control subjects exhibited greater range of hand roll when pantomiming the scooping action on the imagined bowl side. Larger amplitudes of movement paths and larger joint movements are compatible with previous findings in other tool-use tasks such as slicing bread, sawing, or hammering (Clark et al 1994;Poizner et al 1995;Hermsdörfer et al 2011;Hermsdörfer et al 2006). A possible reason for the larger extent of a pantomime may be its communicative nature.…”

Section: Trajectory Characteristics Of the Different Task Conditionssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…First, the severity of the deficit depends on the task condition and decreases from pantomime to actual use. This dependency of tool-use deficit on task conditions has frequently been reported (Buxbaum et al 2000;Clark et al 1994;De Renzi 1990;Goldenberg and Hagmann 1998;Goldenberg et al 2004;Hermsdörfer et al 2006Hermsdörfer et al , 2011Laimgruber et al 2005;Liepmann 1908;Wada et al 1999;Randerath et al 2011). The finding emphasizes the beneficial role of context and mechanical task constraints for ameliorating an apraxic movement deficit present during pantomime (see Introduction).…”

Section: Effects Of Brain Damagementioning

confidence: 73%

“…This notion is in correspondence with similar neuronal representations for different conditions of movement execution as found in a number of neuroimaging studies (see Introduction). A common generalized motor program may be used and adapted flexibly to the different action conditions (Schmidt 1975;Hermsdörfer et al 2011). With such a program, the relative weighting of the parameters of the individuals would be preserved across conditions (resulting in significant correlations) while the magnitudes could differ.…”

Section: Performance Characteristics Across Task Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Tool use without a tool: kinematic characteristics of pantomiming as compared to actual use and the effect of brain damage

Hermsdörfer

Randerath

et al. 2012

Exp Brain Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Movement goals and task mechanics differ substantially between actual tool use and corresponding pantomimes. In addition, apraxia seems to be more severe during pantomime than during actual tool use. Comparisons of these two modes of action execution using quantitative methods of movement analyses are rare. In the present study, repetitive scooping movements with a ladle from a bowl into a plate were recorded and movement kinematics was analyzed. Brain-damaged patients using their ipsilesional hand and healthy control subjects were tested in three conditions: pantomime, demonstration with the tool only, and actual use in the normal context. Analysis of the hand trajectories during the transport component revealed clear differences between the tasks, such as slower actual use and moderate deficits in patients with left brain damage (LBD). LBD patients were particularly impaired in the scooping component: LBD patients with apraxia exhibited reduced hand rotation at the bowl and the plate. The deficit was most obvious during pantomime but actual use was also affected, and reduced hand rotation was consistent across conditions as indicated by strong pair-wise correlations between task conditions. In healthy control subjects, correlations between movement parameters were most evident between the pantomime and demonstration conditions but weak in correlation pairs involving actual use. From these findings and published neuroimaging evidence, we conclude that for a specific tool-use action, common motor schemas are activated but are adjusted and modified according to the actual task constraints and demands. An apraxic LBD individual can show a deficit across all three action conditions, but the severity can differ substantially between conditions.

show abstract

Section: Trajectory Characteristics Of the Different Task Conditionssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Effects Of Brain Damagementioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Performance Characteristics Across Task Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tool use without a tool: kinematic characteristics of pantomiming as compared to actual use and the effect of brain damage

Hermsdörfer

Randerath

et al. 2012

Exp Brain Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These data are consistent with a number of functional imaging studies (Molenberghs et al, 2012;Muhlau et al, 2005;Peeters et al, 2013;Vingerhoets et al, 2009). Activation was most prominent over the SMG, a region typically associated with object use (Hermsdorfer et al, 2013;Johnson-Frey, 2004;Lewis, 2006;Vingerhoets, 2014). Within the SMG region shared activation was more focused over the inferior anterior supramarginal area (iaSMG; around x= -52, y = -27, z = 37) whereas task specific activation centered more over the superior posterior supramarginal region (spSMG; around x = -37, y = -43, z = 48).…”

Section: Inferior Parietal Regionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional connectivity associated with hand shape generation: Imitating novel hand postures and pantomiming tool grips challenge different nodes of a shared neural network

Vingerhoets

Clauwaert

2015

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional connectivity analysis revealed that during hand shape generation the BOLD-response of every region correlated significantly with every other area regardless of the hand posture task performed, although some regions were more involved in some hand postures tasks than others.Based on between-task differences in functional connectivity we predict that imitation of novel hand postures would suffer most from left superior parietal disruption and that pantomiming hand postures for tools would be impaired following left frontal damage, whereas both tasks would be sensitive to inferior parietal dysfunction. We also unveiled that posterior temporal cortex is committed to pantomiming tool grips, but that the involvement of this region to the execution of hand postures in general appears limited. We conclude that the generation of hand postures is subserved by a highly interconnected task-general neural network. Depending on task requirements some nodes/connections will be more engaged than others and these task-sensitive findings are in general agreement with recent lesion studies.

show abstract

“…Consistent with this claim, pantomimed actions are improved in apraxics when the tool is held in the hand, even if the full tool-use action is not completed (e.g. swinging a hammer without contacting nails; Hermsdörfer, Li, Randerath, Roby-Brami, & Goldenberg, 2013). Similar improvements are not observed when a neutral object is held in the hand, which provides similar tactile but not visual feedback, indicating that visual feedback is particular is important for PTU (Goldenberg, Hentze, & Hermsdörfer, 2004; Hermsdörfer, Hentze, & Goldenberg, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Conceptual- and production-related predictors of pantomimed tool use deficits in apraxia

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apraxia following left hemisphere stroke disrupts pantomimed tool use (PTU), a task that requires the integrity of a number of cognitive and motor processes. Although previous studies have identified that apraxics have deficits in (1) the integrity of/access to stored tool-use gesture representations, (2) deficits in intrinsic (body-based) coordinate control, and (3) abnormal reliance on visual feedback, no study to date has simultaneously tested the relative contribution of these three deficits to poor PTU performance. In this study we assessed 38 chronic left hemisphere stroke survivors on tests of PTU and the 3 component processes. We then attempted to predict PTU with the component scores using hierarchical regression to control for overall stroke severity and the possibility of correlated component scores. Results showed that over half of the variability in PTU was predictable, with the strongest independent predictor being a test of intrinsic coordinate control without visual feedback. A test of the integrity of/access to stored representations also predicted PTU. These results confirm and extend previous claims that conceptual- and production-related factors affect PTU, even after considering that deficits in both factors are commonly observed to varying degrees in apraxic patients.

show abstract

Tool use kinematics across different modes of execution. Implications for action representation and apraxia

Cited by 55 publications

References 48 publications

Tool use without a tool: kinematic characteristics of pantomiming as compared to actual use and the effect of brain damage

Tool use without a tool: kinematic characteristics of pantomiming as compared to actual use and the effect of brain damage

Functional connectivity associated with hand shape generation: Imitating novel hand postures and pantomiming tool grips challenge different nodes of a shared neural network

Conceptual- and production-related predictors of pantomimed tool use deficits in apraxia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About