Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why the Mirror Neurons Cannot Support Action Understanding

  • Concepts and Discussions
  • Published:
Neurophysiology Aims and scope

After the discovery of the “mirror” neurons in primates, some researchers tended to explain action understanding as a result of functioning of these units. The proponents of the traditional view on the nature of this cognitive and social phenomenon assume that the mirror neurons do not provide action understanding or provide it only partly. There exist empirical data that cannot be explained through the mirror neuron model of understanding others’ actions. Analyzing the mirror neuron data, I revise their function and propose an alternative role of this type of neurons. At first, goals and intentions of the executor’s action are coded outside the mirror neuron system. If the action is important for the observer and can be useful in his own motor repertoire, his/her mirror neuron system implicitly reproduces the action, retrieving the kinematics and sensory consequences the observer experienced in the past while executing the same action. Thus, the implicit reproduction facilitates the observer to execute this action either immediately or in the future. More likely, precisely this, but not action understanding, is the function of the mirror neurons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. V. Gallese, L. Fadiga, L. Fogassi, and G. Rizzolatti, “Action recognition in the premotor cortex,” Brain, 119, No. 2, 593-609 (1996).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. L. Fogassi, P. F. Ferrari, B. Gesierich, et al., “Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding,” Science, 308, 662-667 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. V. Gallese and A. Goldman, “Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind reading,” Trends Cogn. Sci., 2, No. 12, 493-501 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. G. Rizzolatti and L. Craighero, “Mirror neuron: a neurological approach to empathy,” in: Neurobiology of Human Values, J.-P. Changeaux et al. (eds.), Springer, New York (2005), pp. 107-124.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. V. Gallese, “Embodied simulation: from mirror neuron systems to interpersonal relations,” in: Empathy and Fairness. Novartis Foundation Symposium, Vol. 278, Wiley, Chichester (2006), pp. 3-19.

    Google Scholar 

  6. V. Gallese, “The “shared manifold” hypothesis: from mirror neurons to empathy,” J. Conscious. Stud., 8, Nos. 5/7, 33-50 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  7. G. Hickok, “Eight problems for the mirror neuron theory of action understanding in monkeys and humans,” J. Cogn. Neurosci., 21, 1229-1243 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. G. Csibra, “Action mirroring and action interpretation: An alternative account,” in: Sensorimotor Foundations of Higher Cognition. Attention and Performance XXII, P. Haggard et al. (eds.), Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (2007), pp. 435-480.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Catmur, V. Walsh, and C. Heyes, “Sensorimotor learning configures the human mirror system,” Curr. Biol., 17, 1527-1531 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. B. Z. Mahon and A. Caramazza, “A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content,” J. Physiol., 102, 59-70 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  11. J. M. Kilner, “More than one pathway to action understanding,” Trends Cogn. Sci., 15, No. 8, 352-357 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. G. Rizzolatti, L. Fogassi, and V. Gallese, “Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the understanding and imitation of action,” Nature Rev. Neurosci., 2, No. 9, 661-670 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. L. Koski, A. Wohlschleger, H. Bekkering, et al., “Modulation of motor and premotor activity during imitation of target-directed actions,” Cerebr. Cortex, 12, 847-855 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. M. Villarreal, E. A. Fridman, A. Amengual, et al., “The neural substrate of gesture recognition,” Neuropsychologia, 46, 2371-2382 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. K. Emmorey, J. Xu, P. Gannon, et al., “CNS activation and regional connectivity during pantomime observation: No engagement of the mirror neuron system for deaf signers,” NeuroImage, 49, No. 1, 994-1005 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. G. Rizzolatti, L. Fadiga, V. Gallese, and L. Fogassi, “Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions,” Cogn. Brain Res., 3, 131-141 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. C. M. Heyes, “Where do mirror neurons come from?” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 34, 575-583 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. A. A. Mattar and P. L. Gribble, “Motor learning by observing,” Neuron, 46, No. 1, 153-160 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. J. M. Kilner, Y. Paulignan, and S.-J. Blakemore, “An interference effect of observed biological movement on action,” Curr. Biol., 13, No. 6, 522-525 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. V. Kosonogov, “Listening to action-related sentences impairs posture control,” J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol., 21, 742-745 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. M. Brass, R. M. Schmitt, S. Spengler, and G. Gergely, “Investigating action understanding: inferential processes versus action simulation,” Curr.t Biol., 17, 2117-2121 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. S. M. Braun, A. J. Beurskens, P. J. Borm, et al., “The effects of mental practice in stroke rehabilitation: a systematic review,” Arch. Physiol. Med. Rehabil., 87, No. 6, 842-852 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. L. Simmons, N. Sharma, J. C. Baron, and V. M. Pomeroy, “Motor imagery to enhance recovery after subcortical stroke: who might benefit, daily dose, and potential effects,” Neurorehabil. Neural Repair, 22, No. 5, 458-467 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. M. Franceschini, M. Agosti, A. Cantagallo, et al., “Mirror neurons: action observation treatment as a tool in stroke rehabilitation,” Eur. J. Physiol. Rehabil. Med., 46, No. 4, 517-523 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. M. Franceschini, M. G. Ceravolo, M. Agosti, et al., “Clinical relevance of action observation in upperlimb stroke rehabilitation: a possible role in recovery of functional dexterity. A randomized clinical trial,” Neurorehabil. Neural Repair., 26, No. 5, 456-462 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. M. Grangeon, P. Revol, A. Guillot, et al., “Could motor imagery be effective in upper limb rehabilitation of individuals with spinal cord injury? A case study,” Spinal Cord, Apr. 17, doi: 10.1038/sc.2012.41 (2012).

  27. A. Whiten and D. M. Custance, “Studies of imitation in chimpanzees and children,” in: Social Learning in Animals: The Roots of Culture, C. M. Heyes and B. G. Galef (eds.), Academic Press, London (1996), pp. 291-318.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain

    V. Kosonogov

Authors
  1. V. Kosonogov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Kosonogov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kosonogov, V. Why the Mirror Neurons Cannot Support Action Understanding. Neurophysiology 44, 499–502 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11062-012-9327-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11062-012-9327-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation