Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions

Rizzolatti, Giacomo; Fadiga, Luciano; Gallese, Vittorio; Fogassi, Leonardo

doi:10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0

Cited by 3,891 publications

(2,080 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,890

Contrasting

Unclassified

112

Order By: Relevance

“…The dorsal stream prepares manipulatory actions like grasping and reaching (Shmuelof and Zohary 2005). A quite new discovery is the mirror neuron system, which fires both when an action is performed by the individual and when an action is performed by another (Rizzolatti 1996;Rizzolatti and Craighero 2004;Fogassi, Ferrari et al 2005). It has been found that the mirror neuron system is related to the dorsal stream.…”

Section: Two Visual Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fitting objects into holes: On the development of spatial cognition skills.

Örnkloo¹,

Hofsten²

2007

Developmental Psychology

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined 14-to 26-month-old infants' understanding of the spatial relationships between objects and apertures in an object manipulation task. The task was to insert objects with various cross-sections (circular, square, rectangular, ellipsoid, and triangular) into fitting apertures. A successful solution required the infant to mentally rotate the object to be fit into the aperture and use that information to plan the action. The object was presented standing up in half of the trials; in the other half, it was lying down. The results showed that infants solved the problem consistently from age 22 months and that a successful solution was associated with appropriate preadjustments before the hand arrived with the block to the aperture. No sex differences were found.

show abstract

Section: Two Visual Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fitting objects into holes: On the development of spatial cognition skills.

Örnkloo¹,

Hofsten²

2007

Developmental Psychology

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three varieties of action encoding are included because evidence from a variety of methods (hemodynamic imaging, magnetoencephalography, ERPs, single-unit recording) indicate some overlap in the brain areas engaged during execution of an action, motor imagery, and watching someone else perform an action (Beisteiner et al, 1995;Cunnington et al, 1996;Hari et al, 1998;Grafton et al, 1996;Grezes and Decety, 2001;Rizzolatti et al, 1996;Schnitzler et al, 1997). If episodic retrieval involves some degree of recapitulation of study-phase activity, there is thus reason to expect common brain activity when participants retrieve memories with an action element.…”

Section: Previous Erp Studies Of Action Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…The initial ®nding of`mirror neurons' in the monkey premotor cortex that ®re both during action production and action observation (DiPellegrino, Fadiga, Fogassi, Gallese, & Rizzolatti, 1992) has been followed by a number of brain imaging studies that support the idea of a mirror system in humans (for reviews see Gallese & Goldman, 1998;Grezes, Costes, & Decety, 1998;Meltzo & Prinz, in press;Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, & Fogassi, 1996;Vogt, in press-b). Thus, both behavioral and neural evidence for visuomotor couplings during action observation is available.…”

Section: From Perception To Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%