Parietal and premotor cortices: Activation reflects imitation accuracy during observation, delayed imitation and concurrent imitation

Krüger, Britta; Bischoff, Matthias; Blecker, Carlo R.; Langhanns, Christine; Kindermann, Stefan; Sauerbier, Isabell; Reiser, Mathias; Stark, Rudolf; Munzert, Jörn; Pilgramm, Sebastian

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.074

Cited by 32 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While an extensive brain network was activated during observation, only activation of the right anterior intraparietal sulcus predicted imitation accuracy. Another study using both delayed and online imitation also found positive associations between right parietal cortex and imitative accuracy, with a negative relationship between left parietal/right ventral premotor cortex and imitative accuracy [14]. Together, these studies strongly implement the core parietal -premotor network in the imitation of novel actions.…”

Section: Mirror Neurons In Imitationmentioning

confidence: 79%

The neurocognitive mechanisms of imitation

Hamilton

2015

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Mirror Neurons In Imitationmentioning

confidence: 79%

The neurocognitive mechanisms of imitation

Hamilton

2015

Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, the parietal operculum (POp), anterior to area PF, or the anterior intraparietal sulcus (aIPS), superior to area PF, have also been found to be involved in imitation. Specifically, some have suggested that, during imitation, the left POp is involved in comparing information about the imitator's body with the observed actor's body (Mengotti et al ., ; Krüger et al ., ) and that activity in this area is correlated with the subsequent accuracy of the imitative action (Krüger et al ., ). The left aIPS, however, has been suggested to guide object‐directed hand movements (Tunik et al ., ) and, importantly, also appears to represent the goals of observed object‐directed actions (Hamilton & Grafton, , ; Hamilton, , ; Sacheli et al ., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals a role for the left inferior parietal lobule in matching observed kinematics during imitation

Reader

Royce

Marsh

et al. 2018

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apraxia (a disorder of complex movement) suggests that the left inferior parietal lobule (IPL) plays a role in kinematic or spatial aspects of imitation, which may be particularly important for meaningless (i.e. unfamiliar intransitive) actions. Mirror neuron theories indicate that the IPL is part of a frontoparietal system that can support imitation by linking observed and stored actions through visuomotor matching, and have less to say about different subregions of the left IPL, or how different types of action (i.e. meaningful or meaningless) are processed for imitation. We used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to bridge this gap and better understand the roles of the left supramarginal gyrus (SMG) and left angular gyrus (AG) in imitation. We also examined whether these areas are differentially involved in meaningful and meaningless action imitation. We applied rTMS over the left SMG, over the left AG or during a no-rTMS baseline condition, and then asked participants to imitate a confederate's actions whilst the arm and hand movements of both individuals were motion-tracked. rTMS over both the left SMG and the left AG reduced the velocity of participants' finger movements relative to the actor during imitation of finger gestures, regardless of action meaning. Our results support recent claims in apraxia and confirm a role for the left IPL in kinematic processing during gesture imitation, regardless of action meaning.

show abstract

“…Whilst previous work has quantitatively examined the kinematic elements of imitative behavior in both healthy people (e.g., Braadbaart et al, 2012;Campione & Gentilucci, 2011;Era et al, 2018;Forbes & Hamilton, 2017;Gold et al, 2008;Hayes et al, 2016;Krüger et al, 2014;Pan & Hamilton, 2015;Reader & Holmes, 2015;Reader et al, 2018;Sacheli et al, 2012;Sacheli et al, 2013, Sacheli, Christensen, et al, 2015Wild et al, 2010;Williams et al, 2013) and brain-damaged patients (e.g., Candidi et al, 2018;Hermsdörfer et al, 1996), as far as we are aware no previous experiments have looked at so many components of the velocity profile in order to compare the coarse-grained (i.e., wrist) kinematic approach to meaningful and meaningless action imitation. Much informative work has been done to assess action performance in meaningful and meaningless action imitation (e.g., Buxbaum et al, 2014;Goldenberg & Hagmann, 1997;Mengotti et al, 2013), but frequently using only subjective rating measures.…”

Section: Kinematics In Meaningful and Meaningless Action Imitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A kinematic examination of dual-route processing for action imitation

Reader

Rao

Christakou

et al. 2018

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dual-route model of imitation suggests that meaningful and meaningless actions are processed through either an indirect or a direct route, respectively. Evidence indicates that the direct route is more cognitively demanding since it relies on mapping visuospatial properties of the observed action on to a performed one. These cognitive demands might negatively influence reaction time and accuracy for actions performed following a meaningless action under time constraints. However, how meaningful and meaningless action imitation processing is reflected in movement kinematics is not yet clear. We wanted to confirm whether meaningless action performance incurs a reaction time cost, whether the cost is reflected in kinematics, and, more generally, to examine kinematic markers of emblematic meaningful and meaningless action imitation. We examined participants' reaction time and wrist movements when they imitated emblematic meaningful or matched meaningless gestures in either blocks of the same action type or mixed blocks. Meaningless actions were associated with a greater correction period at the end of the movement, possibly reflecting a strategy designed to ensure accurate completion for less familiar actions under time constraints. Furthermore, in mixed blocks, trials following meaningless actions had a significantly increased reaction time, supporting previous claims that route selection for action imitation may be stimulus-driven. However, there was only convincing evidence for this effect with an interval of~2,948ms, but not~3,573ms or~2,553ms, between movements. Future work motion-tracking the entire hand to assess imitation accuracy, and more closely examining the influence of duration between movements, may help to explain these effects.

show abstract

Parietal and premotor cortices: Activation reflects imitation accuracy during observation, delayed imitation and concurrent imitation

Cited by 32 publications

References 61 publications

The neurocognitive mechanisms of imitation

The neurocognitive mechanisms of imitation

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals a role for the left inferior parietal lobule in matching observed kinematics during imitation

A kinematic examination of dual-route processing for action imitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About