Neurophysiology

, Volume 44, Issue 6, pp 499–502 | Cite as

Why the Mirror Neurons Cannot Support Action Understanding

Concepts and Discussions

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.

Keywords

mirror neurons action understanding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V. Gallese, L. Fadiga, L. Fogassi, and G. Rizzolatti, “Action recognition in the premotor cortex,” Brain, 119, No. 2, 593-609 (1996).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Fogassi, P. F. Ferrari, B. Gesierich, et al., “Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding,” Science, 308, 662-667 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. Gallese and A. Goldman, “Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind reading,” Trends Cogn. Sci., 2, No. 12, 493-501 (1998).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 7.
    G. Hickok, “Eight problems for the mirror neuron theory of action understanding in monkeys and humans,” J. Cogn. Neurosci., 21, 1229-1243 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 9.
    C. Catmur, V. Walsh, and C. Heyes, “Sensorimotor learning configures the human mirror system,” Curr. Biol., 17, 1527-1531 (2007).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 11.
    J. M. Kilner, “More than one pathway to action understanding,” Trends Cogn. Sci., 15, No. 8, 352-357 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Villarreal, E. A. Fridman, A. Amengual, et al., “The neural substrate of gesture recognition,” Neuropsychologia, 46, 2371-2382 (2008).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. M. Heyes, “Where do mirror neurons come from?” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., 34, 575-583 (2010).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. A. Mattar and P. L. Gribble, “Motor learning by observing,” Neuron, 46, No. 1, 153-160 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    V. Kosonogov, “Listening to action-related sentences impairs posture control,” J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol., 21, 742-745 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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).Google Scholar
  25. 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).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MurciaMurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations