Abstract
Theories of embodied cognition propose that we recognize tools in part by reactivating sensorimotor representations of tool use in a process of simulation. If motor simulations play a causal role in tool recognition then performing a concurrent motor task should differentially modulate recognition of experienced vs. non-experienced tools. We sought to test the hypothesis that an incompatible concurrent motor task modulates conceptual processing of learned vs. non-learned objects by directly manipulating the embodied experience of participants. We trained one group to use a set of novel, 3-D printed tools under the pretense that they were preparing for an archeological expedition to Mars (manipulation group); we trained a second group to report declarative information about how the tools are stored (storage group). With this design, familiarity and visual attention to different object parts was similar for both groups, though their qualitative interactions differed. After learning, participants made familiarity judgments of auditorily presented tool names while performing a concurrent motor task or simply sitting at rest. We showed that familiarity judgments were facilitated by motor state-dependence; specifically, in the manipulation group, familiarity was facilitated by a concurrent motor task, whereas in the spatial group familiarity was facilitated while sitting at rest. These results are the first to directly show that manipulation experience differentially modulates conceptual processing of familiar vs. unfamiliar objects, suggesting that embodied representations contribute to recognizing tools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The pseudorandomized assignment of actions and family names was done to ensure that there was no clear relationship between the function of a tool (i.e. a ‘digging’ tool) and any given set of actions or hand postures (i.e. we wanted to avoid having all ‘digging’ tools be associated with a particular action like sweeping for example).
References
Allport, D. A. (1985). Distributed memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. Current perspectives in dysphasia, 32, 60.
Anderson, M. L. (2010). Neural reuse: A fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(4), 245–266.
Badets, A., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2016). A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: Advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80(1), 1–15.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review Psychology, 59, 617–645.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.
Campbell, M. E., & Cunnington, R. (2017). More than an imitation game: Top-down modulation of the human mirror system. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 75, 195–202.
Carr, T. H., McCauley, C., Sperber, R. D., & Parmelee, C. M. (1982). Words, pictures, and priming: on semantic activation, conscious identification, and the automaticity of information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 8(6), 757.
Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage, 12(4), 478–484.
Downing-Doucet, F., & Guérard, K. (2014). A motor similarity effect in object memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(4), 1033–1040.
Gauthier, I., & Tarr, M. J. (1997). Becoming a “Greeble” expert: Exploring mechanisms for face recognition. Vision Research, 37(12), 1673–1682.
Guérard, K., Guerrette, M. C., & Rowe, V. P. (2015). The role of motor affordances in immediate and long-term retention of objects. Acta Psychologica, 162, 69–75.
Guérard, K., & Lagacé, S. (2014). A motor isolation effect: When object manipulability modulates recall performance. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(12), 2439–2454.
Helbig, H. B., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2006). The role of action representations in visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 174(2), 221–228.
Helbig, H. B., Steinwender, J., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2010). Action observation can prime visual object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 200(3–4), 251–258.
Hsu, N. S., Kraemer, D. J., Oliver, R. T., Schlichting, M. L., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2011). Color, context, and cognitive style: Variations in color knowledge retrieval as a function of task and subject variables. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(9), 2544–2557.
Iaccarino, L., Chieffi, S., & Iavarone, A. (2014). Utilization behavior: What is known and what has to be known? Behavioural Neurology, 2014, 297128. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/297128
Kiefer, M., Sim, E. J., Liebich, S., Hauk, O., & Tanaka, J. (2007). Experience-dependent plasticity of conceptual representations in human sensory-motor areas. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(3), 525–542.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). lmerTest: tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-20. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Lenth, R. V. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1), 1–3.
Leone, C., Feys, P., Moumdjian, L., D’Amico, E., Zappia, M., & Francesco, P. (2017). Cognitive-motor dual-task interference: a systematic review of neural correlates. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 75, 348–360
Lhermitte, F. (1983). ‘Utilization behaviour’and its relation to lesions of the frontal lobes. Brain, 106(2), 237–255.
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology Paris, 102(1), 59–70.
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology Paris, 102(1), 59–70.
Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.
Matheson, H. E., White, N. C., & McMullen, P. A. (2014). A test of the embodied simulation theory of object perception: Potentiation of responses to artifacts and animals. Psychological Research, 78(4), 465–482.
Meyer, K., & Damasio, A. (2009). Convergence and divergence in a neural architecture for recognition and memory. Trends in Neurosciences, 32(7), 376–382.
Naish, K. R., Houston-Price, C., Bremner, A. J., & Holmes, N. P. (2014). Effects of action observation on corticospinal excitability: Muscle specificity, direction, and timing of the mirror response. Neuropsychologia, 64, 331–348.
Naish, K. R., & Obhi, S. S. (2015). Timing and specificity of early changes in motor excitability during movement observation. Experimental Brain Research, 233(6), 1867–1874.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220.
Pecher, D. (2013). No role for motor affordances in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 39(1), 2.
Quak, M., Pecher, D., & Zeelenberg, R. (2014). Effects of motor congruence on visual working memory. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 76(7), 2063–2070.
Rugg, M. D., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2013). Moving forward with fMRI data. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(1), 84–87.
Ruitenberg, M. F., De Kleine, E., Van der Lubbe, R. H., Verwey, W. B., & Abrahamse, E. L. (2012). Context-dependent motor skill and the role of practice. Psychological Research, 76(6), 812–820.
Salmon, J. P., Matheson, H. E., & McMullen, P. A. (2014). Slow categorization but fast naming for photographs of manipulable objects. Visual Cognition, 22(2), 141–172.
Sim, E. J., Helbig, H. B., Graf, M., & Kiefer, M. (2015). When action observation facilitates visual perception: activation in visuo-motor areas contributes to object recognition. Cerebral Cortex, 25(9), 2907–2918.
Smith, S. M., & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: A review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8(2), 203–220.
Weisberg, J., Van Turennout, M., & Martin, A. (2006). A neural system for learning about object function. Cerebral Cortex, 17(3), 513–521.
Willenbockel, V., Sadr, J., Fiset, D., Horne, G. O., Gosselin, F., & Tanaka, J. W. (2010). Controlling low-level image properties: the SHINE toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 671–684.
Witt, J. K., Kemmerer, D., Linkenauger, S. A., & Culham, J. (2010). A functional role for motor simulation in identifying tools. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1215–1219.
Yee, E., Chrysikou, E. G., Hoffman, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2013). Manual experience shapes object representations. Psychological Science, 24(6), 909–919.
Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D. (2016). The role of motor action in memory for objects and words. In B. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (vol. 64, pp. 161–193). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by NIH R01DC015359 awarded to STS. Special thanks to Dr. David Kraemer for helpful discussions of the data and Nicole C. White for helpful feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by NIH R01DC015359.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Heath Matheson declares he has no conflict of interest. Ariana Familiar declares she has no conflict of interest. Sharon Thompson-Schill declares she has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Matheson, H.E., Familiar, A.M. & Thompson-Schill, S.L. Investigating grounded conceptualization: motor system state-dependence facilitates familiarity judgments of novel tools. Psychological Research 83, 216–226 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0997-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0997-4