Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 218, Issue 2, pp 201–214 | Cite as

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

  • Joachim HermsdörferEmail author
  • Yong Li
  • Jennifer Randerath
  • Georg Goldenberg
  • Leif Johannsen
Research Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Tool use Left brain damage Apraxia Kinematics Neural representation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, project 01GW0572), the German research foundation (DFG, project HE 3592/7-1) and by the FP7 CogWatch project (EC grant 288912).

References

  1. Buxbaum LJ, Giovannetti T, Libon D (2000) The role of the dynamic body schema in praxis: evidence from primary progressive apraxia. Brain Cogn 44:166–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark MA, Merians AS, Kothari A, Poizner H, Macauley B, Rothi LJG, Heilman KM (1994) Spatial planning deficits in limb apraxia. Brain 117:1093–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Daprati E, Sirigu A (2006) How we interact with objects: learning from brain lesions. Trends Cogn Sci 10:265–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Renzi E (1990) Apraxia. In: Boller F, Grafman J (eds) Handbook of clinical neuropsychology, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, New York, pp 245–263Google Scholar
  5. De Renzi E, Luchelli F (1988) Ideational apraxia. Brain 111:1173–1185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Renzi E, Faglioni P, Sorgato P (1982) Modality-specific and supramodal mechanisms of apraxia. Brain 105:301–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Filimon F, Nelson JD, Hagler DJ, Sereno MI (2007) Human cortical representations for reaching: mirror neurons for execution, observation, and imagery. Neuroimage 37:1315–1328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisk JD, Goodale MA (1988) The effects of unilateral brain damage on visually guided reaching: hemispheric differences in the nature of the deficit. Exp Brain Res 72:425–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerardin E, Sirigu A, Lehéricy S, Poline J-B, Gaymard B, Marsault C, Agid Y, Le Bihan D (2000) Partially overlapping neural networks for real and imagined hand movements. Cereb Cortex 10:1093–1104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldenberg G (1996) Defective imitation of gestures in patients with damage in the left or right hemispheres. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 61:176–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldenberg G (2008) Apraxia. In: Goldenberg G, Miller B (eds) Handbook of clinical neurology—neuropsychology and behavior. Elsevier, Edinburgh, pp 323–338Google Scholar
  12. Goldenberg G, Hagmann S (1998) Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia. Neuropsychologia 36:581–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldenberg G, Spatt J (2009) The neural basis of tool use. Brain 132:1645–1655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldenberg G, Hartmann K, Schlott I (2003) Defective pantomime of object use in left brain damage: apraxia or asymbolia? Neuropsychologia 41:1565–1573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldenberg G, Hentze S, Hermsdörfer J (2004) The effect of tactile feedback on pantomime of tool use in apraxia. Neurology 63:1863–1867PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodale MA, Jakobson LS, Keillor JM (1994) Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements. Neuropsychologia 32:1159–1178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grèzes J, Decety J (2001) Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation, observation, and verb generation of actions: a meta-analysis. Hum Brain Map 12:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haaland KY, Harrington DL (1994) Limb-sequencing deficits after left but not right hemisphere damage. Brain Cogn 24:104–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haaland KY, Prestopnik JL, Knight RT, Lee RR (2004) Hemispheric asymmetries for kinematic and positional aspects of reaching. Brain 127:1145–1158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanakawa T, Dimyan MA, Hallett M (2008) Motor planning, imagery, and execution in the distributed motor network: a time-course study with functional MRI. Cereb Cortex 18:2775–2788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanna-Pladdy B, Heilman KM, Foundas AL (2001) Cortical and subcortical contributions to ideomotor apraxia: analysis of task demands and error types. Brain 124:2513–2527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hermsdörfer J, Goldenberg G (2002) Ipsilesional deficits during fast diadocokinetic hand movements following unilateral brain damage. Neuropsychologia 40:2100–2115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hermsdörfer J, Blankenfeld H, Goldenberg G (2003) The dependence of ipsilesional aiming deficits on task demands, lesioned hemisphere, and apraxia. Neuropsychologia 41:1628–1643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hermsdörfer J, Hentze S, Goldenberg G (2006) Spatial and kinematic features of apraxic movement depend on the mode of execution. Neuropsychologia 44:1642–1652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hermsdörfer J, Terlinden G, Mühlau M, Goldenberg G, Wohlschläger AM (2007) Neural representations of pantomimed and actual tool use: evidence from an event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage 36:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hermsdörfer J, Li Y, Randerath J, Roby-Brami A, Goldenberg G (2011) Tool use kinematics across different modes of execution. Implications for movement planning and apraxia. Cortex (in press)Google Scholar
  27. Jeannerod M (2001) Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage 14:S103–S109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson-Frey SH (2004) The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends Cogn Sci 8:71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Laimgruber K, Goldenberg G, Hermsdörfer J (2005) Manual and hemispheric asymmetries in the execution of actual and pantomimed prehension. Neuropsychologia 43:682–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis JW (2006) Cortical networks related to human use of tools. Neuroscientist 12:211–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liepmann H (1908) Drei Aufsätze aus dem Apraxiegebiet. Karger, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Lotze M, Montoya P, Erb M, Hulsmann E, Flor H, Klose U, Birbaumer N, Grodd W (1999) Activation of cortical and cerebellar motor areas during executed and imagined hand movements—an Fmri study. J Cogn Neurosci 11:491–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Osiurak F, Jarry C, Allain P, Aubin G, Etcharry-Bouyx F, Richard I, Bernard I, Le GD (2009) Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage. The technical reasoning model. Cortex 45:769–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Osiurak F, Jarry C, Le Gall D (2011) Re-examining the gesture engram hypothesis. New perspectives on apraxia of tool use. Neuropsychologia (in press, corrected proof)Google Scholar
  35. Poizner H, Clark MA, Merians AS, Macauley B, Rothi LJG, Heilman KM (1995) Joint coordination deficits in limb apraxia. Brain 118:227–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Randerath J, Li Y, Goldenberg G, Hermsdörfer J (2009) Grasping tools: effects of task and apraxia. Neuropsychologia 47:497–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Randerath J, Goldenberg G, Spijkers W, Li Y, Hermsdörfer J (2010) Different left brain regions are essential for grasping a tool compared with its subsequent use. NeuroImage 53:171–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Randerath J, Spijkers W, Goldenberg G, Li Y, Hermsdörfer J (2011) From Pantomime to actual use: how affordances can facilitate actual tool-use. Neuropsychologia 49:2410–2416Google Scholar
  39. Rizzolatti G, Fogassi L, Gallese V (2002) Motor and cognitive functions of the ventral premotor cortex. Curr Opin Neurobiol 12:149–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rothi LJG, Heilman KM (1997) Apraxia: the neuropsychology of action. Psychology Press, East SussexGoogle Scholar
  41. Rothi LJG, Raymer AM, Heilman KM (1997) Limb praxis assessment. In: Rothi LJG, Heilman KM (eds) Apraxia: the neuropsychology of action. Psychology Press, East Sussex, pp 61–73Google Scholar
  42. Roy EA, Black SE, Barbour K, Mcguiness K, Kalbfleisch L (1998) Pantomime and imitation of hand gestures following stroke. Brain Cogn 37:127–129Google Scholar
  43. Salmaso D, Longoni AM (1985) Problems in the assessment of hand preference. Cortex 21:533–549PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Schaefer SY, Haaland KY, Sainburg RL (2007) Ipsilesional motor deficits following stroke reflect hemispheric specializations for movement control. Brain 130:2146–2158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schaefer SY, Haaland KY, Sainburg RL (2009) Hemispheric specialization and functional impact of ipsilesional deficits in movement coordination and accuracy. Neuropsychologia 47:2953–2966PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmidt RA (1975) A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychol Rev 82:225–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sirigu A, Cohen L, Duhamel JR, Pillon B, Dubois B, Agid Y (1995) A selective impairment of hand posture for object utilization in apraxia. Cortex 31:41–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wada Y, Nakagawa Y, Nishikawa T, Aso N, Inokawa M, Kashiwagi A, Tanabe H, Takeda M (1999) Role of somatosensory feedback from tools in realizing movements by patients with ideomotor apraxia. Eur Neurol 41:73–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Westwood DA, Schweizer TA, Heath MD, Roy EA, Dixon MJ, Black SE (2001) Transitive gesture production in apraxia: visual and nonvisual sensory contributions. Brain Cogn 46:300–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Winstein CJ, Pohl PS (1995) Effects of unilateral brain damage on the control of goal-directed hand movements. Exp Brain Res 105:163–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joachim Hermsdörfer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yong Li
    • 2
  • Jennifer Randerath
    • 3
  • Georg Goldenberg
    • 4
  • Leif Johannsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sport and Health ScienceTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  3. 3.Psychological SciencesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of NeuropsychologyHospital München-BogenhausenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations