2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.04.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From pantomime to actual use: How affordances can facilitate actual tool-use

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
65
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
5
65
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Based on the known involvement of the left posterior temporal cortex and inferior parietal lobe in tasks that engage action knowledge (e.g., Kellenbach et al, 2003;Weiss et al, 2008;Kalénine et al, 2010;Randerath et al, 2011), we predicted that the Posterior participants would perform differently than Anterior or Control participants on triads in which Action association is a determining feature, namely, the Th+A vs. Th-A triads. Thus, the Anterior group served as a neurologically-impaired control group, and its members' lesions did not include regions predicted to disrupt action knowledge (i.e., inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortex).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the known involvement of the left posterior temporal cortex and inferior parietal lobe in tasks that engage action knowledge (e.g., Kellenbach et al, 2003;Weiss et al, 2008;Kalénine et al, 2010;Randerath et al, 2011), we predicted that the Posterior participants would perform differently than Anterior or Control participants on triads in which Action association is a determining feature, namely, the Th+A vs. Th-A triads. Thus, the Anterior group served as a neurologically-impaired control group, and its members' lesions did not include regions predicted to disrupt action knowledge (i.e., inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortex).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eight different tools were presented, and the patients were requested to demonstrate their use. A detailed description of the test and the scoring system used can be found in Randerath et al (2009Randerath et al ( , 2011. As expected, LBD patients scored worse than RBD patients (LBD: mean = 71.05%, range: 0-100%, RBD: mean = 99.2%, range: 97-100%).…”
Section: Subjectsmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…Their errors vary widely from severe errors, such as no movement response or unrecognizable movements, to milder errors, such as incorrect hand grips at the imagined tool. A number of studies reported that patients perform better when they are allowed to actually use tools as compared to when they pantomime tool use (Buxbaum et al 2000;Clark et al 1994;De Renzi 1990;Goldenberg and Hagmann 1998;Goldenberg et al 2004;Hermsdörfer et al 2006;Laimgruber et al 2005;Liepmann 1908;Wada et al 1999), although errors or even inability of actual tool use have also been reported (De Renzi and Luchelli 1988;Goldenberg and Hagmann 1998;Goldenberg and Spatt 2009;Westwood et al 2001;Randerath et al 2011). In one of these studies (Goldenberg et al 2004), a neutral wooden implement resembling the handle of the tools was provided instead of the real tool (i.e., a 10-cm-long stick with a diameter of 3 cm instead of the hammer).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations