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

Abstract

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.

The actual and potential use of gestures for communication in aphasia

“…For example, when healthy subjects pantomime scooping soup from one pot to another with a ladle, they roll their hand above the pots even more than when they perform the same activity with real ladles and real soup. Subjects with aphasia and apraxia, comparable to the participants of this study, frequently omit the additional movement (Hermsdörfer, Li, Randerath, Goldenberg, & Johannsen, 2012). Their pantomimes thus become more realistic but less comprehensible than those of healthy subjects.…”

A kinematic analysis of age-related changes in grasping to use and grasping to move common objects

“…To date, most studies in normal aging explored kinematic changes in reaching and grasping meaningless objects, such as geometrical shapes, while the kinematics of tool use have been assessed mainly in adults with apraxia (Hermsdörfer, Hentze, & Goldenberg, 2006;Hermsdörfer, Li, Randerath, Goldenberg, & Johannsen, 2012;Laimgruber, Goldenberg, & Hermsdörfer, 2005;Poizner, Mack, Verfaellie, Rothi, & Heilman, 1990;Poizner et al, 1995;Sunderland, Wilkins, & Dineen, 2011). In the studies on apraxia, the presence or absence of a tool in the patient's hand during the actual execution of the movement (e.g.…”

“…To our knowledge, this aspect has not yet been specifically explored in normal aging, even though it does appear relevant given that elderly adults seem to benefit from the ecological value of the tasks (Bennett & Castiello, 1994;Carnahan, Vandervoort & Swanson (1998) Varadhan et al, 2012). For instance, grasping a common tool with the purpose of using it may be more natural and automatic than grasping to move an object, since the affordances of the object may automatically evoke the motor program specifically related to the use of the object (Hermsdörfer et al, 2012;Tucker & Ellis, 2004).…”

“…In the studies on apraxia, the presence or absence of a tool in the patient's hand during the actual execution of the movement (e.g. actual use of the object against pantomime of the use, as in Hermsdörfer et al, 2012;Hermsdörfer et al, 2006;Laimgruber et al, 2005), or the level of concreteness and meaning of the object (common tools or abstract objects) to be manipulated (Sunderland et al, 2011) was considered. A specific assessment of whether the affordance of the object and goal of the task influenced the performance of apraxic patients was carried out by Randerath, Li, Goldenberg, and Hermsdörfer (2009).…”

A validated set of tool pictures with matched objects and non-objects for laterality research

“…Indeed, a lot of evidence from clinical studies indicates a major role of the left hemisphere of the brain in accessing and processing the knowledge of tools and tool use. For instance, Hermsdorfer, Li, Randerath, Goldenberg & Johanssen (2012) found that patients with left hemisphere stroke exhibited reduced hand rotation at the bowl and the plate in pantomiming as well as actual use. Randerath, Goldenberg, Spijkers, Li & Hermsdorfer (2010) found a large area of lesion overlap in the left supramarginal gyrus for patients with impaired tool use whereas lesion overlap in the left inferior frontal gyrus and left angular gyrus for patients who were impaired in tool grasping.…”