From pantomime to actual use: How affordances can facilitate actual tool-use

Contribution of the posterior parietal cortex in reaching, grasping, and using objects and tools

Neuropsychological and neuroimaging data suggest a differential contribution of posterior parietal regions during the different components of a transitive gesture. Reaching requires the integration of object location and body position coordinates and reaching tasks elicit bilateral activation in different foci along the intraparietal sulcus. Grasping requires a visuomotor match between the object's shape and the hand's posture. Lesion studies and neuroimaging confirm the importance of the anterior part of the intraparietal sulcus for human grasping. Reaching and grasping reveal bilateral activation that is generally more prominent on the side contralateral to the hand used or the hemifield stimulated. Purposeful behavior with objects and tools can be assessed in a variety of ways, including actual use, pantomimed use, and pure imagery of manipulation. All tasks have been shown to elicit robust activation over the left parietal cortex in neuroimaging, but lesion studies have not always confirmed these findings. Compared to pantomimed or imagined gestures, actual object and tool use typically produces activation over the left primary somatosensory region. Neuroimaging studies on pantomiming or imagery of tool use in healthy volunteers revealed neural responses in possibly separate foci in the left supramarginal gyrus. In sum, the parietal contribution of reaching and grasping of objects seems to depend on a bilateral network of intraparietal foci that appear organized along gradients of sensory and effector preferences. Dorsal and medial parietal cortex appears to contribute to the online monitoring/adjusting of the ongoing prehensile action, whereas the functional use of objects and tools seems to involve the inferior lateral parietal cortex. This functional input reveals a clear left lateralized activation pattern that may be tuned to the integration of acquired knowledge in the planning and guidance of the transitive movement.

Sensorimotor event: an approach to the dynamic, embodied, and embedded nature of sensorimotor cognition

In this paper, I explore the notion of sensorimotor event as the building block of sensorimotor cognition. A sensorimotor event is presented here as a neurally controlled event that recruits those processes and elements that are necessary to address the demands of the situation in which the individual is involved. The notion of sensorimotor event is intended to subsume the dynamic, embodied, and embedded nature of sensorimotor cognition, in agreement with the satisficing and bricoleur approach to sensorimotor cognition presented elsewhere (Vilarroya, 2012). In particular, the notion of sensorimotor event encompasses those relevant neural processes, but also those bodily and environmental elements, that are necessary to deal with the situation in which the individual is involved. This continuum of neural processes as well as bodily and environmental elements can be characterized, and this characterization is considered the basis for the identification of the particular sensorimotor event. Among other consequences, the notion of sensorimotor event suggests a different approach to the classical account of sensory-input mapping onto a motor output. Instead of characterizing how a neural system responds to an external input, the idea defended here is to characterize how system-in-an-environment responds to its antecedent situation.

Dissociations of action means and outcome processing in left-hemisphere stroke

Previous evidence suggests that distinct fronto-parietal regions may be involved in representing action kinematics (means) and action results (outcome) during action observation. However, the evidence is contradictory with respect to the precise regions that are critical for each type of representation. Additionally unknown is the degree to which ability to detect action means and outcome during observation is related to action production performance. We used a behavioral task to evaluate the ability of healthy and left-hemisphere stroke participants to detect differences between pairs of videos that dissociated object-related action means (e.g., wiping with circular or straight movement) and/or outcome (e.g., applying or removing detergent). We expected that deficits in detecting action means would be associated with spatiomotor gesture production deficits, whereas deficits in detecting action outcome would predict impairments in complex naturalistic action. We also hypothesized a posterior to anterior gradient in the regions critical for each type of representation, disproportionately affecting means and outcome encoding, respectively. Results indicated that outcome--but not means--detection predicted naturalistic action performance in stroke participants. Regression and voxel lesion-symptom mapping analyses of lesion data revealed that means--but not outcome--coding relies on the integrity of the left inferior parietal lobe, whereas no selective critical brain region could be identified for outcome detection. Thus, means and outcome representations are dissociable at both the behavioral and neuroanatomical levels. Furthermore, the data are consistent with a degree of parallelism between action perception and production tasks. Finally, they reinforce the evidence for a critical role of the left inferior parietal lobule in the representation of action means, whereas action outcome may rely on a more distributed neural circuit.

Are tool properties always processed automatically? The role of tool use context and task complexity

Previous work with healthy adults supports the idea that perception of the orientation of a tool's handle may automatically activate cognitive components for grasping and use. An important source of evidence for this automatic activation view comes from studies showing interference when automatically activated action representations are inconsistent with the behaviors demanded by a task (e.g., Tucker and Ellis, 1998). Here, we evaluated whether such effects occur in a grip selection task in which responses were chosen based on a learned rule (Rule task) versus anticipatory planning (Plan task). Participants were asked to pantomime grasping horizontally presented objects with handles. In the Rule task, a color cue indicated on which side of the tool's handle the thumb had to be placed. In the Plan task, participants had to choose the most comfortable way to grasp and rotate the object into a specific end-position. Across three experiments we found evidence of interference on grip selection exclusively during the Rule task, and only when it was preceded by a prime task that involved tool use. These findings suggest that prior activation of cognitive components through use of tools can be effective over time and interferes with grip selection based on use of a pre-learned rule. Absence of interference effects during the plan task, even when preceded by the Use task, suggest that engagement of similar mechanisms during active planning overwrites this automatic activation of previously effective components. Possible cognitive and neural mechanisms are discussed.

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

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.