Abstract
It has previously been demonstrated that tool recognition is facilitated by the repeated visual presentation of object features affording actions, such as those related to grasping and their functional use. It is unclear, however, if this can also facilitate pantomiming. Participants were presented with an image of a prime followed by a target tool and were required to pantomime the appropriate action for each one. The grasp and functional use attributes of the target tool were either the same or different to the prime. Contrary to expectations, participants were slower at pantomiming the target tool relative to the prime regardless of whether the grasp and function of the tool were the same or different—except when the prime and target tools consisted of identical images of the same exemplar. We also found a decrease in accuracy of performing functional use actions for the target tool relative to the prime when the two differed in functional use but not grasp. We reconcile differences between our findings and those that have performed priming studies on tool recognition with differences in task demands and known differences in how the brain recognises tools and performs actions to make use of them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cassidy A (2016) The clinical assessment of apraxia. Pract Neurol 16(4):317–322. https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2015-001354
Castiello U (2005) The neuroscience of grasping. Nat Rev Neurosci 6(9):726. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1744
Chainay H, Brüers S, Martin H, Osiurak F (2014) Transport and use of common objects: influence of weight on action planning. Vis Cogn 22(9–10):1154–1172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2014.975883
Chouinard PA, Goodale MA (2009) FMRI adaptation during performance of learned arbitrary visuomotor conditional associations. Neuroimage 48(4):696–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.07.020
Chouinard PA, Goodale MA (2012) FMRI-adaptation to highly-rendered color photographs of animals and manipulable artifacts during a classification task. Neuroimage 59(3):2941–2951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.073
Chouinard PA, Morrissey BF, Köhler S, Goodale MA (2008) Repetition suppression in occipital–temporal visual areas is modulated by physical rather than semantic features of objects. Neuroimage 41(1):130–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.02.011
Creem SH, Proffitt DR (2001) Grasping objects by their handles: a necessary interaction between cognition and action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27(1):218. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.27.1.218
Cuijpers RH, Smeets JB, Brenner E (2004) On the relation between object shape and grasping kinematics. J Neurophysiol 91(6):2598–2606. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00644.2003
de Groot AM, Thomassen AJ, Hudson PT (1986) Primed-lexical decision: the effect of varying the stimulus-onset asynchrony of prime and target. Acta Physiol (Oxf) 61(1):17–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(86)90019-3
Ellis R, Tucker M (2000) Micro-affordance: the potentiation of components of action by seen objects. Br J Psychol 91(4):451–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161934
Filimon F (2015) Are all spatial reference frames egocentric? Reinterpreting evidence for allocentric, object-centered, or world-centered reference frames. Front Hum Neurosci 9:648. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00648
Foley RT, Whitwell RL, Goodale MA (2015) The two-visual-systems hypothesis and the perspectival features of visual experience. Conscious Cogn 35:225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.03.005
Gelman A, Hill J, Yajima M (2012) Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons. J Res Educ Eff 5(2):189–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2011.618213
Gibson J (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Miffin, Boston
Goldenberg G (2013) Apraxia: the cognitive side of motor control. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Goodale MA, Haffenden A (1998) Frames of reference for perception and action in the human visual system. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 22(2):161–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7634(97)00007-9
Goodale MA, Milner AD (1992) Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci 15(1):20–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(92)90344-8
Goodale MA, Milner AD, Jakobson L, Carey D (1991) A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature 349(6305):154. https://doi.org/10.1038/349154a0
Goodale MA, Jakobson LS, Keillor JM (1994) Differences in the visual control of pantomimed and natural grasping movements. Neuropsychologia 32(10):1159–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(94)90100-7
Grafton ST, Arbib MA, Fadiga L, Rizzolatti G (1996) Localization of grasp representations in humans by positron emission tomography. Exp Brain Res 112(1):103–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00227183
Grezes J, Decety J (2001) Functional anatomy of execution, mental simulation, observation, and verb generation of actions: a meta-analysis. Hum Brain Mapp 12(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0193(200101)12:1%3c1:aid-hbm10%3e3.0.co;2-v
Helbig HB, Graf M, Kiefer M (2006) The role of action representations in visual object recognition. Exp Brain Res 174(2):221–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0443-5
Hermans D, Spruyt A, Eelen P (2003) Automatic affective priming of recently acquired stimulus valence: priming at SOA 300 but not at SOA 1000. Cogn Emot 17(1):83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930302276
Hermsdörfer J, Terlinden G, Mühlau M, Goldenberg G, Wohlschläger A (2007) Neural representations of pantomimed and actual tool use: evidence from an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 36:T109–T118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.037
Jax SA, Buxbaum LJ (2010) Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition 115(2):350–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.004
Jeannerod M, Arbib MA, Rizzolatti G, Sakata H (1995) Grasping objects: the cortical mechanisms of visuomotor transformation. Trends Neurosci 18(7):314–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(95)93921-J
Jeffreys H (1998) The theory of probability. OUP, Oxford
Johnson-Frey SH (2004) The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends Cogn Sci 8(2):71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.002
Johnson-Frey SH, Newman-Norlund R, Grafton ST (2004) A distributed left hemisphere network active during planning of everyday tool use skills. Cereb Cortex 15(6):681–695. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhh169
Jones-Engel L, Bard K (1996) Precision grips in young chimpanzees. Am J Primatol 39(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-2345(1996)39:1%3c1:aid-ajp1%3e3.3.co;2-v
Kiefer M, Sim E-J, Helbig H, Graf M (2011) Tracking the time course of action priming on object recognition: evidence for fast and slow influences of action on perception. J Cogn Neurosci 23(8):1864–1874. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21543
Marzke MW, Wullstein KL (1996) Chimpanzee and human grips: a new classification with a focus on evolutionary morphology. Int J Primatol 17(1):117–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02696162
McNair NA, Harris IM (2012) Disentangling the contributions of grasp and action representations in the recognition of manipulable objects. Exp Brain Res 220(1):71–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3116-6
Milner AD, Goodale MA (2008) Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia 46(3):774–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.10.005
Napier JR (1960) Studies of the hands of living primates. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the Zoological Society of London
Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9(1):97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
Preuschoft H, Chivers DJ (2012) Hands of primates. Springer Science & Business Media, New York
Snow JC, Pettypiece CE, McAdam TD, McLean AD, Stroman PW, Goodale MA, Culham JC (2011) Bringing the real world into the fMRI scanner: repetition effects for pictures versus real objects. Sci Rep 1:130. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00130
Tucker M, Ellis R (1998) On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24(3):830. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.830
Valyear KF, Chapman CS, Gallivan JP, Mark RS, Culham JC (2011) To use or to move: goal-set modulates priming when grasping real tools. Exp Brain Res 212(1):125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2705-0
Vry M-S, Tritschler LC, Hamzei F, Rijntjes M, Kaller CP, Hoeren M, Goldenberg G (2015) The ventral fiber pathway for pantomime of object use. Neuroimage 106:252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.11.002
Watson CE, Buxbaum LJ (2015) A distributed network critical for selecting among tool-directed actions. Cortex 65:65–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.01.007
Westwood DA, Goodale MA (2003) Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. Spat Vis 16(3):243–254. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856803322467518
Wheaton LA, Hallett M (2007) Ideomotor apraxia: a review. J Neurol Sci 260(1–2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2007.04.014
Whitwell RL, Milner AD, Goodale MA (2014) The two visual systems hypothesis: new challenges and insights from visual form agnosic patient DF. Front Neurol 5:255. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2014.00255
Wood DK, Chouinard PA, Major AJ, Goodale MA (2017) Sensitivity to biomechanical limitations during postural decision-making depends on the integrity of posterior superior parietal cortex. Cortex 97:202–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.07.005
Zhang W, Gordon AM, Fu Q, Santello M (2010) Manipulation after object rotation reveals independent sensorimotor memory representations of digit positions and forces. J Neurophysiol 103(6):2953. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00140.2010
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (DP170103189). We thank Nicolas McNair and Irina Harris for their advice and generously providing us with their stimuli. We also thank Bailey Evans for helping us with the scoring of the videos.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All the authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kithu, M.C., Saccone, E.J., Crewther, S.G. et al. A pantomiming priming study on the grasp and functional use actions of tools. Exp Brain Res 237, 2155–2165 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-019-05581-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-019-05581-4