Apraxia of Tool Use: An Autopsy Case of Biparietal Infarction

Fukutake, Toshio

doi:10.1159/000067027

Cited by 21 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Within this network, IPL and PMv/pars opercularis are demonstrated to be the two distinct regions that are sensitive to perceived physical competency. This finding is in accord with the theory that motor vocabularies are stored within these two brain regions, an idea that is supported by studies with apraxic patients (Buxbaum et al, 2003;Fukutake, 2003) and animal studies (Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004;Rizzolatti et al, 1996a). This implies a close relationship between the substrates of action and physical embodiment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Building a motor simulation de novo: Observation of dance by dancers

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on action simulation identifies brain areas that are active while imagining or performing simple overlearned actions. Are areas engaged during imagined movement sensitive to the amount of actual physical practice? In the present study, participants were expert dancers who learned and rehearsed novel, complex whole-body dance sequences 5 h a week across 5 weeks. Brain activity was recorded weekly by fMRI as dancers observed and imagined performing different movement sequences. Half these sequences were rehearsed and half were unpracticed control movements. After each trial, participants rated how well they could perform the movement. We hypothesized that activity in premotor areas would increase as participants observed and simulated movements that they had learnt outside the scanner. Dancers' ratings of their ability to perform rehearsed sequences, but not the control sequences, increased with training. When dancers observed and simulated another dancer's movements, brain regions classically associated with both action simulation and action observation were active, including inferior parietal lobule, cingulate and supplementary motor areas, ventral premotor cortex, superior temporal sulcus and primary motor cortex. Critically, inferior parietal lobule and ventral premotor activity was modulated as a function of dancers' ratings of their own ability to perform the observed movements and their motor experience. These data demonstrate that a complex motor resonance can be built de novo over 5 weeks of rehearsal. Furthermore, activity in premotor and parietal areas during action simulation is enhanced by the ability to execute a learned action irrespective of stimulus familiarity or semantic label.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Building a motor simulation de novo: Observation of dance by dancers

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important prediction derived from the disconnection hypothesis is that we should also find the opposite pattern, namely, difficulties in real tool use but not in pantomime. This pattern has been reported in two case-studies, 239 , 240 which are subject to methodological flaws. 45 In other words, evidence rules out the disconnection hypothesis.…”

Section: Severity Versus Disconnectionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Pantomime of tool use: looking beyond apraxia

Reynaud

Baumard

Rossetti

et al. 2021

Brain Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pantomime has a long tradition in clinical neuropsychology of apraxia. It has been much more used by researchers and clinicians to assess tool-use disorders than real tool use. Nevertheless, it remains incompletely understood and has given rise to controversies, such as the involvement of the left inferior parietal lobe or the nature of the underlying cognitive processes. The present article offers a comprehensive framework, with the aim of specifying the neural and cognitive bases of pantomime. To do so, we conducted a series of meta-analyses of brain-lesion, neuroimaging, and behavioral studies about pantomime and other related tasks (i.e., real tool use, imitation of meaningless postures, and semantic knowledge). The first key finding is that the area PF (Area PF complex) within the left inferior parietal lobe is crucially involved in both pantomime and real tool use as well as in the kinematics component of pantomime. The second key finding is the absence of a well-defined neural substrate for the posture component of pantomime (both grip errors and body-part-as-tool responses). The third key finding is the role played by the intraparietal sulcus in both pantomime and imitation of meaningless postures. The fourth key finding is that the left angular gyrus seems to be critical in the production of motor actions directed toward the body. The fifth key finding is that performance on pantomime is strongly correlated with the severity of semantic deficits. Taken together, these findings invite us to offer a neurocognitive model of pantomime, which provides an integrated alternative to the two hypotheses that dominate the field: The gesture-engram hypothesis and the communicative hypothesis. More specifically, this model assumes that technical reasoning (notably the left area PF), the motor-control system (notably the intraparietal sulcus), body structural description (notably the left angular gyrus), semantic knowledge (notably the polar temporal lobes) and potentially theory of mind (notably the middle prefrontal cortex) work in concert to produce pantomime. The original features of this model open new avenues for understanding the neurocognitive bases of pantomime, emphasizing that pantomime is a communicative task that nevertheless originates in specific tool-use (not motor-related) cognitive processes.

show abstract

“…The opposite pattern of impairment has also been reported in three case studies: a deficit in performing actions with real objects with preserved ability to pantomime the same actions (Fututake, 2003;Heath et al, 2003;Motomura and Yamadori, 1994). There has, however, been some dispute as to whether this latter sort of result might be attributable to a visuoperceptual deficit that prevents accurate identification of object parts and thus makes it difficult to interact with real objects (Bartolo et al, 2003).…”

Section: Varieties Of Action: Pantomime Versus Interactions With Realmentioning

confidence: 80%

Memory for pantomimed actions versus actions with real objects

Senkfor

2008

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A substantial literature indicates that human actions during object use and pantomimed object use are not identical, and can be differentially affected by brain damage such that apraxic patients can be more impaired in performing actions with objects or at pantomiming such actions. A different literature suggests that memory retrieval can involve reinstating or recapitulating some of the same brain activity that occurred during the original event. The current experiment examines memory for pantomimed actions versus those conducted with real objects to determine if accuracy or brain electrical activity differs during the recollection of episodes involving pantomime versus actual object use. Across two sessions, participants were presented with images of studied objects and judged whether each object was studied by (1) performing an action, (2) watching the experimenter perform an action, (3) imagining an action, or (4) the nonmotoric control task of estimating the object's cost. The study phases preceding this source memory test differed across sessions: in one, participants were presented with real objects and estimated its cost or performed, watched, or imagined typical actions with the objects; in the other they viewed images of each object and estimated its cost or performed, imagined, or watched pantomimes of object use. Although source accuracy was the same across sessions, event-related potentials (ERPs) recorded during memory retrieval differed for memory for actions with real objects versus their pantomime equivalents. Retrieval-phase activity did not differ for cost-encoded objects. The real-object/pantomime difference in brain activity was maximal over left frontal and frontocentral cortex, suggesting differential engagement of motor cortex during memory for real actions versus pantomimed actions.

show abstract

Apraxia of Tool Use: An Autopsy Case of Biparietal Infarction

Cited by 21 publications

References 7 publications

Building a motor simulation de novo: Observation of dance by dancers

Building a motor simulation de novo: Observation of dance by dancers

Pantomime of tool use: looking beyond apraxia

Memory for pantomimed actions versus actions with real objects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About