Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 193, Issue 1, pp 43–53 | Cite as

Language-induced motor activity in bi-manual object lifting

  • Claudia Scorolli
  • Anna M. Borghi
  • Arthur Glenberg
Research Article

Abstract

Language comprehension requires a simulation process that taps perception and action systems. How specific is this simulation? To address this question, participants listened to sentences referring to the lifting of light or heavy objects (e.g., pillow or chest, respectively). Then they lifted one of two boxes that were visually identical, but one was light and the other heavy. We focused on the kinematics of the initial lift (rather than reaching) because it is mostly shaped by proprioceptive features derived from weight that cannot be visually determined. Participants were slower when the weight suggested by the sentence and the weight of the box corresponded. This effect indicates that language can activate a simulation which is sensitive to intrinsic properties such as weight.

Keywords

Language Weight Intrinsic objects properties Movement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Ministero Italiano dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (MIUR), Progetto PRIN 2006, by a University of Bologna Ph.D. grant to the first author and by the FP7 project ROSSI, Emergence of communication in RObots through Sensorimotor and Social Interaction, Grant agreement no: 216125 to the second author. We thank Roberto Bolzani, Daniele Caligiore, and Barbara Marino for useful discussions of these data. Thanks also to the students of courses in cognitive psychology for their help in executing the experiment.

References

  1. Barsalou LW (2008a) Cognitive and neural contributions to understanding the conceptual system. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 17:91–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barsalou LW (2008b) Grounded cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:617–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosbach S, Cole J, Prinz W, Knoblich G (2005) Inferring another’s expectation from action: the role of peripheral sensation. Nature 8:1295–1297Google Scholar
  4. Boulanger V, Roy AC, Paulignan Y, Deprez V, Jeannerod M, Nazir TA (2006) Cross-talk between language processes and overt motor behavior in the first 200 msec of Processing. J Cogn Neurosci 18:1607–1615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenner E, Smeets JBJ (1996) Size illusion influences how we lift but not how we grasp an object. Exp Brain Res 111:473–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouwer AM, Georgiou G, Glover S, Castiello U (2006) Adjusting reach to lift movements to sudden visible changes in target’s weight. Exp Brain Res 173:629–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buccino G, Riggio L, Melli G, Binkofsky F, Gallese V, Rizzolatti (2005) Listening to action relating sentences modulates the activity of the motor system: a combined TMS and behavioral study. Cogn Brain Res 24:355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eastough D, Edwards M (2007) Movement kinematics in prehension are affected by grasping objects of different mass. Exp Brain Res 176:193–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer M, Zwaan RA (2008) Embodied language: a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Q J Exp Psychol 61:825–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallese V (2007) Before and below theory of mind: embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Proc R Soc Biol Biol 362:659–669Google Scholar
  11. Gallese V (2008) Mirror neurons and the social nature of language: the neural exploitation hypothesis. Soc Neurosci (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Gallese V, Goldman A (1998) Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind reading. Trends Cogn Sci 2:493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gentilucci M (2003a) Object motor representation and language. Exp Brain Res 153:260–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gentilucci M (2003b) Grasp observation influences speech production. Eur J NeuroSci 17:179–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gentilucci M, Gangitano M (1998) Influence of automatic word reading on motor control. Eur J NeuroSci 10:752–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gentilucci M, Chieffi S, Scarpa M, Castiello U (1992) Temporal coupling between transport and grasp components during prehension movements: effects of visual perturbation. Behav Brain Res 47:71–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentilucci M, Benuzzi F, Bertolani L, Daprati E, Gangitano M (2000) Language and motor control. Exp Brain Res 133:468–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glenberg AM, Kaschak MP (2002) Grounding language in action. Psychon Bull Rev 9:558–565PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Glover S (2004) Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behav Brain Sci 27:3–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Glover S, Dixon P (2002) Semantics affect the planning but not control of grasping. Exp Brain Res 146:383–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glover S, Rosenbaum DA, Graham J, Dixon P (2004) Grasping the meaning of words. Exp Brain Res 154:103–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodale MA (1998) Visuomotor control: Where does vision end and action begin? Curr Biol 8:R489–R491Google Scholar
  23. Hamilton A, Wolpert D, Frith U (2004) Your own action influences how you perceive another person’s action. Curr Biol 14:493–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauk O, Johnsrude I, Pulvermüller F (2004) Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41:301–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hommel B, Musseler J, Ascherslebenm G, Prinz W (2001) The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci 24:849–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson SR, Shaw A (2000) The ponzo illusion affects grip-force but not grip-aperture scaling during prehension movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:418–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeannerod M (1981) Intersegmental coordination during reaching at natural visual objects. In: Long J, Baddeley A (eds) Attention and performance IX, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 153–168Google Scholar
  28. Jeannerod M (2007) Motor cognition. What actions tell to the self. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Jeannerod M, Arbib MA, Rizzolatti G, Sakata H (1995) Grasping objects: the cortical mechanisms of visuomotor transformation. Trends Neurosci 18:314–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jenmalm P, Johansson RS (1997) Visual and somatosensory information about object shape control manipulative fingertip forces. J Neurosci 17:4486–4499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Jenmalm P, Schmitz C, Forssberg H, Ehrsson HH (2006) Lighter or heavier than predicted: neural correlates of corrective mechanisms during erroneously programmed lifts. J Neurosci 26:9015–9021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johansson RS, Westling G (1984) Roles of glabrous skin receptors and sensorimotor memory in automatic control of precision grip when lifting rougher and more slippery objects. Exp Brain Res 56:550–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johansson RS, Westling G (1988) Coordinated isometric muscle commands adequately and erroneously programmed for the weight during lifting task with precision grip. Exp Brain Res 71:59–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kemmerer D (2006) Action verbs, argument structure constructions, and the mirror neuron system. In: Arbib M (ed) Action to language via the mirror neuron system. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 347–373Google Scholar
  35. Kemmerer D, Gonzalez Castillo J, Talavage T, Patterson S, Wiley C (2008) Neuroanatomical distribution of five semantic components of verbs: evidence from fMRI. Brain Lang (in press)Google Scholar
  36. Lafuente de V, Romo R (2004) Language abilities of motor cortex. Neuron 41:178–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindemann O, Stenneken P, van Schie HT, Bekkering H (2006) Semantic activation in action planning. J Exp Psychol 32:633–643Google Scholar
  38. Martin A (2007) The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annu Rev Psychol 58:25–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martin A, Wiggs CL, Ungerleider LG, Haxby JV (1996) Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge. Nature 379:649–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milner AD, Goodale MA (1993) Visual pathways to perception and action. In: Hicks TP, Molotchniko VS, Ono T (eds) Progress in brain research, vol 95. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  41. Pecher D, Zeelenberg R, Barsalou LW (2003) Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychol Sci 14:119–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saffran EM, Coslett H, Martin N, Boronat CB (2003) Access to knowledge from pictures but not words in a patient with progressive fluent aphasia. Lang Cogn Proc 18:725–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scorolli C, Borghi A (2007) Sentence comprehension and action: effector specific modulation of the motor system. Brain Res 1130:119–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scorolli C, Glenberg A, Borghi A (2007) Effects of language on the perception and on the production of a lifting movement, IV Annual meeting of Italian association of cognitive science, RomeGoogle Scholar
  45. Smeets JBJ, Brenner E (1999) A new view on grasping. Motor Cont 3:237–271Google Scholar
  46. Weir PL, MacKenzie CL, Marteniuk RG, Cargoe SL, Frazer MB (1991) The effect of object weight on the kinematics of prehension. J Motor Behav 23:192–204Google Scholar
  47. Wise R, Chollet F, Hadar U, Frison K, Hoffner E, Frackowiak R (1991) Distribution of cortical neural networks involved in word comprehension and word retrieval. Brain 114:1803–1817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Westling G, Johansson RS (1984) Factors influencing the force control during precision grip. Exp Brain Res 53:277–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zoia S, Pezzetta E, Blason L, Scabra A, Carrozzi M, Bulgheroni M, Castiello U (2006) A comparison of the reach-to-grasp movement between children and adults: a kinematics study. Dev Neuropsychol 30:719–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Scorolli
    • 1
  • Anna M. Borghi
    • 2
  • Arthur Glenberg
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Communication DisciplinesUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.Deparment of PsychologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations