A functional role for motor simulation in identifying tools

Psychological Science, 2020

Experimental Brain Research, 2015

Neuroimage, 1997

Positron emission tomography was used to investigate whether observation of real objects (tools of common use) activates premotor areas in the absence of any overt motor demand. Silent naming of the presented tools and silent naming of their use were also studied. Right-handed normal subjects were employed. Tool observation strongly activated the left dorsal premotor cortex. In contrast, silent tool naming activated Broca's area without additional activity in the dorsal premotor cortex. Silent tool-use naming, in addition to activating Broca's area, increased the activity in the left dorsal premotor cortex and recruited the left ventral premotor cortex and the left supplementary motor area. These data indicate that, even in the absence of any subsequent movement, the left premotor cortex processes objects that, like tools, have a motor valence. This dorsal premotor activation, which further augments when the subject names the tool use, should reflect the neural activity related to motor schemata for object use. The presence of an activation of both dorsal premotor cortex and ventral premotor cortex during tool-use naming suggests a role for these two areas in understanding object semantics. 1997

Cortex, 2007

Human dexterity with tools is believed to stem from our ability to incorporate and use tools as parts of our body. However tool incorporation, evident as extensions in our body representation and peri-personal space, has been observed predominantly after extended tool exposures and does not explain our immediate motor behaviours when we change tools. Here we utilize two novel experiments to elucidate the presence of additional immediate tool incorporation effects that determine motor planning with tools. Interestingly, tools were observed to immediately induce a trial-by-trial, tool length dependent shortening of the perceived limb lengths, opposite to observations of elongations after extended tool use. Our results thus exhibit that tools induce a dual effect on our body representation; an immediate shortening that critically affects motor planning with a new tool, and the slow elongation, probably a consequence of skill related changes in sensory-motor mappings with the repeated use of the tool.

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2003

PET was used to investigate the neural correlates of action knowledge in object representations, particularly the left lateralized network of activations previously implicated in the processing of tools and their associated actions: ventral premotor cortex (VPMCx), posterior middle temporal gyrus (PMTG), and intraparietal sulcus (IPS). Judgments were made about the actions and functions associated with manipulable man-made objects (e.g., hammer); this enabled us to measure activations in response to both explicit and implicit retrieval of knowledge about actions associated with manipulable tools. Function judgments were also made about nonmanipulable artifacts (e.g., traffic light) providing a direct comparison for manipulable objects. Although neither the left VPMCx nor the left PMTG were selective for tool stimuli (nonmanipulable objects also activated these areas relative to a visual control condition), both regions responded more strongly to manipulable objects, suggesting a rol...

When using lever tools, subjects have to deal with two, not necessarily concordant effects of their motor behavior: The body-related proximal effects, like tactile sensations from the moving hand, and/or more external distal effects, like the moving effect points of the lever. As a consequence, spatial compatibility relationships between stimulus (S; at which the effect points of the lever aim at), responding hand (R) and effect point of the lever (E) play a critical role in response generation. In the present study we examine whether the occurrence of compatibility effects needs real tool movements or whether a similar response pattern can be already evoked by pure mental imaginations of the tool effects. In general, response times and errors observed with real and imagined tool movements showed a similar pattern of results, but there were also differences. With incompatible relationships and thus more difficult tasks, response times were reduced with imagined tool movements than compared with real tool movements. On the contrary, with compatible relationships and thus high overlap between proximal and distal action effects, response times were increased with imagined tool movements. Results are only in parts consistent with the ideomotor theory of motor control.

2012

Prior research has linked visual perception of tools with plausible motor strategies. Thus, observing a tool activates the putative action-stream, including the left posterior parietal cortex. Observing a hand functionally grasping a tool involves the inferior frontal cortex. However, tool-use movements are performed in a contextual and grasp specific manner, rather than relative isolation.

Frontiers in Psychology, 2013

Anatomo-clinical and neuroimaging data show that the left fronto-parietal areas play an important role in representing tools. As manipulation is an important source of knowledge about tools, it has been assumed that motor activity explains the link between tool knowledge and the left fronto-parietal areas. However, controversies exist over the exact mechanisms underlying this relationship. According to a strong version of the "embodied cognition theory," activation of a tool concept necessarily involves re-enactment of the corresponding kind of action. Impairment of the ability to use tools should, therefore, lead to impairment of tool knowledge. Both the "domains of knowledge hypothesis" and the "sensory-motor model of conceptual knowledge" refute the strong version of the "embodied cognition hypothesis" but acknowledge that manipulation and other action schemata play an important role in our knowledge of tools. The basic difference between these two models is that the former is based on an innate model and the latter holds that the brain's organization of categories is experience dependent. Data supporting and arguing against each of these models are briefly reviewed. In particular, the following lines of research, which argue against the innate nature of the brain's categorical organization, are discussed: (1) the observation that in patients with category-specific disorders the semantic impairment does not respect the boundaries between biological entities and artifact items; (2) data showing that experience-driven neuroplasticity in musicians is not confined to alterations of perceptual and motor maps but also leads to the establishment of higherlevel semantic representations for musical instruments; (3) results of experiments using previously unfamiliar materials showing that the history of our sensory-motor experience with an object significantly affects its neural representation.

Journal of cognitive …, 2010

■ Recent research indicates that language processing relies on brain areas dedicated to perception and action. For example, processing words denoting manipulable objects has been shown to activate a fronto-parietal network involved in actual tool use. This is suggested to reflect the knowledge the subject has about how objects are moved and used. However, information about how to use an object may be much more central to the conceptual representation of an object than information about how to move an object. Therefore, there may be much more fine-grained distinctions between objects on the neural level, especially related to the usability of manipulable objects. In the current study, we investi-gated whether a distinction can be made between words denoting (1) objects that can be picked up to move (e.g., volumetrically manipulable objects: bookend, clock) and (2) objects that must be picked up to use (e.g., functionally manipulable objects: cup, pen). The results show that functionally manipulable words elicit greater levels of activation in the fronto-parietal sensorimotor areas than volumetrically manipulable words. This suggests that indeed a distinction can be made between different types of manipulable objects. Specifically, how an object is used functionally rather than whether an object can be displaced with the hand is reflected in semantic representations in the brain. ■