Startseite Are Intentional Processes with Tool Use Similar for Simulated and Executed Actions?
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Are Intentional Processes with Tool Use Similar for Simulated and Executed Actions?

  • Carl Gabbard EMAIL logo und Priscila Caçola
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 14. August 2013

Abstract

We asked the question, does motor simulation (via imagery) and planning with execution have similar intentional characteristics? And, does use of a tool compared to arm reaching influence a different intention effect? We instructed participants to use motor imagery to estimate distance reachability with the hand (arm extended) and a 20-cm tool using a NOGO/GO intention paradigm. That is, use of imagery only and imagery with actual execution (IE). Results indicated no differences in accuracy within or between HAND and TOOL conditions. That is, there was no observable intentional effect. These findings lend preliminary support to an increasing body of evidence suggesting that the neurocognitive processes (in this case, intention) driving motor imagery and executed actions are similar for hand and tool use.

References

Burianová, H., Marstaller, L., Sowman, P., Tesan, G., Richl, A. N., Williams, M., Johnson, W. B. (2013). Multimodal functional imaging of motor imagery using a novel paradigm. NeuroImage, 71, 5058.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.01.001Suche in Google Scholar

Caçola, P., & Gabbard, C. (2012). Modulating peripersonal and extrapersonal reach space via tool use: A comparison between 6- to 12-year-olds and young adults. Experimental Brain Research, 218(2), 321330.10.1007/s00221-012-3017-8Suche in Google Scholar

Carello, C., Grosofsky, A., Reichel, F. D., Soloan, H. Y., & Turvey, M. T. (1989). Visually perceiving what is reachable. Ecological Psychology, 1, 2754.10.1207/s15326969eco0101_3Suche in Google Scholar

Choi, H. J., & Mark, L. S. (2004). Scaling affordances for human reach actions. Human Movement Science, 23, 785806.10.1016/j.humov.2004.08.004Suche in Google Scholar

Coello, Y., & Delevoye-Turrell, Y. (2007). Embodiment, spatial categorization and action. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(3), 667683.10.1016/j.concog.2007.07.003Suche in Google Scholar

Crémers, J., Dessoullières, A., & Garraux, G. (2012). Hemispheric specialization during mental imagery of brisk walking. Human Brain Mapping, 33(4), 873882.10.1002/hbm.21255Suche in Google Scholar

de Grave, D. D. J., Brenner, E., & Smeets, J. B. F. (2011). Using a stick does not necessarily alter judged distances or reachability. PLoS One, 6(2), e16697.10.1371/journal.pone.0016697Suche in Google Scholar

Gabbard, C., & Caçola, P. (2009). The role of intentionality in simulated motor actions. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 4(1), Article 4.10.2202/1932-0191.1041Suche in Google Scholar

Gabbard, C., Cordova, A., & Lee, S. (2009). A question of intention in motor imagery. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 300305.10.1016/j.concog.2008.07.003Suche in Google Scholar

Grèzes, J., & Decety, J. (2001). Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation, observation, and verb generation of actions: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 12, 119.10.1002/1097-0193(200101)12:1<1::AID-HBM10>3.0.CO;2-VSuche in Google Scholar

Jeannerod, M. (1997). The cognitive neuroscience of action. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Jeannerod, M. (2006). Motor cognition: What actions tell the self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198569657.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Johnson, H., & Haggard, P. (2002). Motor awareness without perceptual awareness. Neuropsychologia, 43, 227237.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.009Suche in Google Scholar

Lorey, B., Pilgramm, S., Walter, B., Stark, R., Munzert, J., & Zentgraf, K. (2010). Your mind’s hand: Motor imagery of pointing movements with different accuracy. NeuroImage, 49, 32393247.10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.038Suche in Google Scholar

Mizuguchi, N., Nakata, H., Hayashi, T., Sakamoto, M., Muraoka, T., Uchida, Y., & Kanosue, K. (2013). Brain activity during motor imagery of an action with an object: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroscience Research (available online). doi:10.1016/j.neures.2013.03.012Suche in Google Scholar

Munzert, J. (2009). Motor imagery and its implications for understanding the motor system. Progress in Brain Research, 174, 219229.10.1016/S0079-6123(09)01318-1Suche in Google Scholar

Ramsey, R., Cummings, J., Eastough, D., & Edwards, M. (2010). Incongruent imagery interferes with action initiation. Brain and Cognition, 74(3), 249254.10.1016/j.bandc.2010.08.005Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Rieger, M., & Massen, C. (2013). Tool characteristics in imagery of tool actions. Psychological Research.doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0481Suche in Google Scholar

Tomasino, B., Weiss, P. H., & Fink, G. R. (2012). Imagined tool-use in near and far space modulates the extra-striate body area. Neuropsychologia, 50(10), 24672476.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.06.018Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

Witt, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Action-specific influences on distance perception: A role of motor simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 14791492.Suche in Google Scholar

Witt, J. K., Proffitt, D. R., & Epstein, W. (2005). Tool use affects perceived distance, but only when you intend to use it. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(5), 880888.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2013-08-14

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston

Heruntergeladen am 31.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jirspa-2013-0003/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen