Different left brain regions are essential for grasping a tool compared with its subsequent use

Randerath, Jennifer; Goldenberg, Georg; Spijkers, Will; Li, Yong; Hermsdörfer, Joachim

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.06.038

Cited by 94 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Buxbaum et al (2003) showed that left hemisphere-lesioned apraxics had difficulty selecting photographs of hand postures that were appropriate for using pictured objects. Moreover, virtual lesions to the left supramarginal gyrus (SMG) of the inferior parietal lobe disrupted ability to judge the appropriate hand configuration for tool use (Andres et al, 2013), and the SMG is a critical locus of damage in apraxics who position the hand inappropriately for tool use (Randerath et al, 2010). However, the present evidence is the first to suggest that temporal-parietal lesions may affect understanding of object-to-object associations based in action.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

The Role of Action Representations in Thematic Object Relations

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of studies have explored the role of associative/event-based (thematic) and categorical (taxonomic) relations in the organization of object representations. Recent evidence suggests that thematic information may be particularly important in determining relationships between manipulable artifacts. However, although sensorimotor information is on many accounts an important component of manipulable artifact representations, little is known about the role that action may play during the processing of semantic relationships (particularly thematic relationships) between multiple objects. In this study, we assessed healthy and left hemisphere stroke participants to explore three questions relevant to object relationship processing. First, we assessed whether participants tended to favor thematic relations including action (Th+A, e.g., wine bottle-corkscrew), thematic relationships without action (Th-A, e.g., wine bottle-cheese), or taxonomic relationships (Tax, e.g., wine bottle-water bottle) when choosing between them in an association judgment task with manipulable artifacts. Second, we assessed whether the underlying constructs of event relatedness, action relatedness, and categorical relatedness determined the choices that participants made. Third, we assessed the hypothesis that degraded action knowledge and/or damage to temporo-parietal cortex, a region of the brain associated with the representation of action knowledge, would reduce the influence of action on the choice task. Experiment 1 showed that explicit ratings of event, action, and categorical relatedness were differentially predictive of healthy participants' choices, with action relatedness determining choices between Th+A and Th-A associations above and beyond event and categorical ratings. Experiment 2 focused more specifically on these Th+A vs. Th-A choices and demonstrated that participants with left temporo-parietal lesions, a brain region known to be involved in sensorimotor processing, were less likely than controls and tended to be less likely than patients with lesions sparing that region to use action relatedness in determining their choices. These data indicate that action knowledge plays a critical role in processing of thematic relations for manipulable artifacts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

The Role of Action Representations in Thematic Object Relations

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Hermsdorfer, Li, Randerath, Goldenberg & Johanssen (2012) found that patients with left hemisphere stroke exhibited reduced hand rotation at the bowl and the plate in pantomiming as well as actual use. Randerath, Goldenberg, Spijkers, Li & Hermsdorfer (2010) found a large area of lesion overlap in the left supramarginal gyrus for patients with impaired tool use whereas lesion overlap in the left inferior frontal gyrus and left angular gyrus for patients who were impaired in tool grasping. Also, Goldenberg & Spatt (2009) observed that parietal lesions involving the left supramarginal gyrus impaired tool use (both common and new) and left frontal lesions affected tool use and tool knowledge.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

A validated set of tool pictures with matched objects and non-objects for laterality research

Verma

Brysbaert

2014

Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuropsychological and neuroimaging research has established that knowledge related to tool use and tool recognition is lateralized to the left cerebral hemisphere. Recently, behavioural studies with the visual half-field technique have confirmed the lateralization. A limitation of this research was that different sets of stimuli had to be used for the comparison of tools to other objects and objects to non-objects. Therefore, we developed a new set of stimuli containing matched triplets of tools, other objects and non-objects. With the new stimulus set, we successfully replicated the findings of no visual field advantage for objects in an object recognition task combined with a significant right visual field advantage for tools in a tool recognition task. The set of stimuli is available as supplemental data to this article

show abstract

“…MRIcron was also used to perform statistical VLSM (Bates et al, 2003) in the 52 patients with lesion maps and complete neuropsychological assessment (10 tests, see above). VLSM has been employed to elucidate the neural basis of cognitive deficits after damage to the RH (i.e., neglect (Committeri et al, 2007;Verdon et al, 2010) or the LH (i.e., apraxia (Dovern et al, 2011;Randerath, Goldenberg, Spijkers, Li, & Hermsdörfer, 2010) and aphasia (Baldo, Schwartz, Wilkins, & Dronkers, 2006;Fridriksson, Fillmore, Guo, & Rorden, 2014)). Recently, VLSM has been used to investigate the relationship between apraxic and aphasic deficits after LH damage (Mengotti et al, 2013;Saygin, Wilson, Dronkers, & Bates, 2004;Weiss et al, 2015).…”

Section: Lesion Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%