Towards and away from the body: The relevance of the direction of use in the coding of object-related actions

Spatial representations of objects used away and towards the body: The effect of near and far space

An action with an object can be accomplished only if we encode the position of the object with respect to our body (i.e., egocentrically) and/or to another element in the environment (i.e., allocentrically). However, some actions with the objects are directed towards our body, such as brushing our teeth, and others away from the body, such as writing. Objects can be near the body, that is within arm reaching, or far from the body, that is outside arm reaching. The aim of this study was to verify if the direction of use of the objects influences the way we represent their position in both near and far space. Objects typically used towards (TB) or away from the body (AB) were presented in near or far space and participants had to judge whether an object was closer to them (i.e., egocentric judgement) or closer to another object (i.e., allocentric judgement). Results showed that egocentric judgements on TB objects were more accurate in near than in far space. Moreover, allocentric judgements on AB objects were less accurate than egocentric judgements in near space but not in far space. These results are discussed with respect to the different roles that visuo-motor and visuo-spatial mechanisms play in near space and far space, respectively.

Representational Processes of Actions Toward and Away from the Body

The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of mental representation processes during the planning, reaching, and use phases of actions with tools commonly used toward the body (TB, e.g., toothbrush) or away from the body (AB, e.g., pencil). In the first session, healthy participants were asked to perform TB (i.e., making circular movements with the toothbrush near the mouth) and AB (i.e., making circular movements with the pencil near the desk) actions both with (i.e., actual use) and without the tool in hand (i.e., the pantomime of tool use). In the second session, the same participants performed a series of mental rotation tasks involving body- (i.e., face and hands) and object-related (i.e., abstract lines) stimuli. The temporal and kinematic analysis of the motor actions showed that the time required to start the pantomimes (i.e., the planning phase) was shorter for the AB action than for the TB action. In contrast, the reaching phase lasted longer for the AB action than for the TB action. Furthermore, the TB pantomime was associated with the performance in the mental rotation of body-related stimuli, especially during the planning and reaching phases, whereas the AB pantomime was more related to the performance in the mental rotation of object-related stimuli, especially during the tool use phase. Thus, the results revealed that the direction of a goal-directed motor action influences the dynamics of the different phases of the motor action and can determine the type of mental images involved in the planning and execution of the action.

Pantomime of tool use: looking beyond apraxia

Pantomime has a long tradition in clinical neuropsychology of apraxia. It has been much more used by researchers and clinicians to assess tool-use disorders than real tool use. Nevertheless, it remains incompletely understood and has given rise to controversies, such as the involvement of the left inferior parietal lobe or the nature of the underlying cognitive processes. The present article offers a comprehensive framework, with the aim of specifying the neural and cognitive bases of pantomime. To do so, we conducted a series of meta-analyses of brain-lesion, neuroimaging and behavioural studies about pantomime and other related tasks (i.e. real tool use, imitation of meaningless postures and semantic knowledge). The first key finding is that the area PF (Area PF complex) within the left inferior parietal lobe is crucially involved in both pantomime and real tool use as well as in the kinematics component of pantomime. The second key finding is the absence of a well-defined neural substrate for the posture component of pantomime (both grip errors and body-part-as-tool responses). The third key finding is the role played by the intraparietal sulcus in both pantomime and imitation of meaningless postures. The fourth key finding is that the left angular gyrus seems to be critical in the production of motor actions directed towards the body. The fifth key finding is that performance on pantomime is strongly correlated with the severity of semantic deficits. Taken together, these findings invite us to offer a neurocognitive model of pantomime, which provides an integrated alternative to the two hypotheses that dominate the field: The gesture-engram hypothesis and the communicative hypothesis. More specifically, this model assumes that technical reasoning (notably the left area PF), the motor-control system (notably the intraparietal sulcus), body structural description (notably the left angular gyrus), semantic knowledge (notably the polar temporal lobes) and potentially theory of mind (notably the middle prefrontal cortex) work in concert to produce pantomime. The original features of this model open new avenues for understanding the neurocognitive bases of pantomime, emphasizing that pantomime is a communicative task that nevertheless originates in specific tool-use (not motor-related) cognitive processes.

<Please insert Graphical abstract here>