Motor Cognition

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition

Overview • Many people believe processes used to plan and

enact a movement can be used in problem solving and reasoning

• Moreover, the processes involved in perceiving action are also involved in movement

• This lecture will introduce key ideas involved in motor cognition and memory for action needed

• in planning, and producing our own actions; anticipating, perceiving, and interpreting the actions of others

• In remembering actions


Terminology • Movement is a voluntary displacement of a body

part in space• Action – a series of movements performed to

achieve a goal


Perception-action cycle• Refers to the transformation of perceived patterns

(often visually) into coordinated patterns of movement

• Examples. Returning a tennis ball, picking up a mug of coffee, walking on uneven terrain

• According to this perspective much of human behavior involves the interconnection of perception and movement

• The mediating link between perception and action is that a shared representation; that is, the coding of perception and action is shared in the brain


Motor processing in the brain• Neuroanatomy

• Area M1, the primary cortex. Neurons in this region control fine motor movements, and send fibers out to muscles themselves

• Premotor area (PM) sets up program for motor sequences, and send input into M1

• Supplementary motor area (SMA) sets up and executes motor plans


Motor processing in the brain• Neuroanatomy

• Think of these 3 areas as a hierarchy. M1 is at the bottom of the hierarchy, and it enables specific movements; PM higher up and it enables sets of movements; at top SMA represents overarching plans of action

Primary motor cortex (M1)

Posterior parietal cortex

Premotor cortex

Supplementarymotor cortex(SMA)


Some evidence for roles of three areas• Mushiake (1991)• Recorded single-cell activity in monkeys in M1, PM,

and SMA• 2 conditions of interest were IT (internally triggered)

and VT (visually triggered)• In both conditions monkeys were required to touch 3

pads on a panel; in the IT condition monkeys needed to remember sequence and then touch the panels in the remembered order; in the VT condition monkeys touched panels as they were illuminated


Some evidence for roles of three areas• M1 cells were active in the premovement and

movement periods consistent with the hypothesis that M1 is involved in movement

• More SMA cells were active in the IT than the VT condition, consistent with the idea that SMA is important during planning since planning is more important in IT than VT condition

• More neurons were active in the VT than the IT condition during the premovement and movement periods


Some evidence for roles of three areas• Conclusions

• Movement planning and production involves a number of neuropsychological processes with different functions. These processes occur in different brain regions, and often occur simultaneously

• Planning and then producing a response involves different neural processes than responding to environmental cues


Summary• We have reviewed the role of just 3 brain regions

involved in motor cognition• Other regions are also involved with their

involvement depending on the precise nature of the task; in fact it’s been said that it takes the whole brain to make a cup of coffee


Shared representation• A considerable amount of data suggests that we can

efficiently represent the actions made by other people (e.g., through viewing)

• It has been hypothesized this occurs (and brain-activation studies support this) because the representation of perceived action and produced action is shared

• These representations enable us to interpret the actions of others, respond appropriately, and efficiently learn how to physically produce actions that were viewed

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• Mirror Neurons

• Mirror neurons—refers to neurons that fire when organism (monkey) performs a specific grasping movement, and when that same grasping movement is observed being performed by experimenter or monkey

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• Mirror Neurons

• Human evidence• A variety of techniques have been used to

provide evidence for motor neurons in humans• A transcranial magnetic stimulation study

showed increased excitability in the motor system during observation of actions performed by another person, but only for the brain regions involved in the muscles used by the other person


Apraxia • Definition

• An impaired ability to generate skilled actions that cannot be attributed to basic sensory or motor disturbance

• Generally conceptualized to reflect a disruption of a distributed praxis network

• Research has often focused on transitive actions -- actions that involve manipulation of a tool or object

• Examples– use of a hammer, spatula, • Apraxia frequently observed after neurological

damage• praxis network was thought to be left lateralized


Diagram of praxis network

Component Model ApproachRoy and Square, 1994; Roy, 1996


Sensory/Perceptual System

Conceptual System

Production System

Visual/Gestural Information

Auditory/Verbal Information

Visual Tool/Object Information

Knowledge of Action

Knowledge of Tool/Object Function

Image Generation

Response Selection

Working Memory

Response Organization/Control

Delayed Imitation

Concurrent Imitation

Pantomime







Main Responsibilities:

Analyzing visual gestural information

Identifying key features of tools and objects for use




Conceptual System




Knowledge of Action

Knowledge of Tool/Object Function

Main Responsibilities:

Understanding tools, objects, and gestures

different types of conceptual knowledge are dissociable

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• Conceptual knowledge

• It appears that different types of conceptual knowledge associated with action are dissociable from each other as demonstrated in the next slides


• Function knowledge vs manipulation knowledge• Buxbaum and Saffran (2002) investigated

function and manipulation knowledge in apraxic and non-apraxic patients with LHD (aside, px were apraxic to gestural tests including tests of pantomime)

• Function knowledge – which two items are most similar in function (e.g., stapler, cellophane tape, pen)

• Manipulation knowledge – which two items are most similar in manner of manipulation (e.g., piano, typewriter, stove)


• Results apraxic patients were more impaired in manipulation test, but than function test

• Kellenbach et al. (2003) used PET to investigate brain activation associated with function and manipulation judgments

• Results showed that when participants made conceptual judgments about function, there was activation of a left network consisting of the ventral premotor cortex and the posterior middle temporal gyrus

• When participants made manipulation judgment an additional region, and additional region, the intraparietal sulcus, was activated


• Conceptual knowledgeThe intraparietal sulcus plays an important role in

skilled object use (Heilman, 1993)


• Conceptual knowledgeVisual-gestural knowledge

Beauchamp (2002) in neuroimaging study showed that bilateral regions of the middle temporal cortex were activated when tool motion (i.e., gestural motion) was viewed in comparison to human motion (i.e., person jogging on the spot)


• Conceptual knowledge

Beauchamp (2003) in neuroimaging study showed that middle temporal gyrus responded more strongly to tool motion videos and point-light displays of tool motion

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• Point-light displays (aside)

• Animals and humans move in ways that are distinctive and different from the way in which nonhumans move. These patterns of movement are called biological motion

• Johansson (1973) developed the ‘point-light display’ technique to investigate movement.

• Small light sources attached wrists, knees, ankles, shoulders, and heads of actors who performed various movements (e.g., walking, running, dancing)


• Conceptual knowledge

Park and Roy (in prep) showed that patients with LHD, but not RHD were strongly impaired on function and manipulation tests but that patients with LHD and RHD were impaired on tests of visual-gestural knowledge

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• Conclusions • These studies suggest that different types of

conceptual knowledge associated with action are dissociable from each other

• Three types of knowledge have been studied in depth. These are knowledge of:

• Function • Manipulation• Visual-gestural knowledge of tool motion

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• Imitation in this model can be accomplished in two

different ways• 1. directly from perception to action; and • 2. indirectly through long-term memory

• Evidence to support this comes from studies which have shown:

• The general observation that meaningless actions can be imitated accurately in cognitively unimpaired individuals

• Findings of dissociation between imitation and pantomime (e.g., Goldenberg & Hagmann, 1997; Ochipa et al., 1994); stronger lateralization to pantomime than to imitation

• (interpret on basis of model)

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• What is acquired when we view purposeful action

• It would appear that we derive the goal of the action

• (e.g., see a person reaching hand across table, grasping a mug of coffee, and moving is toward lips would be described as …drinking a cup of coffee. In other words viewed actions tend to be described in terms of the goal of the action


Imitation• Imitation -- ability to understand the intent of a

viewed action and then to reproduce it • This needs to be distinguished from mimicry, which

is reproduction of a behavior without understanding (e.g., a parrot mimics human speech)

• Meltzoff and Moore (1977) showed that newborn infants can imitate viewed action (sticking out tongue; opening mouth etc.)

• By 6 months of age infants can imitate actions on objects (e.g., shaking a rattle)


Imitation• As infants grow older deferred imitation abilities

increase (i.e., memory for imitated action)• data show that infants as young as 18 months

appear to represent intentions of actions not just the action itself

• E.g., children who watched an actor try to pull apart a dumbbell but failed, were more likely to try and pull apart the dumbbell than if they watched a mechanical device attempt to pull apart a dumbbell

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• Components of imitation• Decety et al. (1997) in neuroimaging studies

compared brain activation of subjects as they viewed meaningless actions either intending to recognize or to imitate the viewed action

• Additional brain regions activated when intending imitate meaningless actions: supplementary motor area (SMA), the middle frontal gyrus, the premotor cortex, the anterior cingulate, and the superior and inferior parietal cortices in both hemispheres.

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• Conclusion: intentions (top-down) processes of

participant influenced observation of action. Regions activated during observation also are the ones involved in action generation.

• Observing an action with the intention to perform that action involves regions similar to those used to generate the action

• when intending to recognize an action activated regions were the memory encoding structures (the parahippocampal gyrus)

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• When actions are viewed — separating intention

from means – a neuroimaging perspective • Several people have proposed that actions are

often understood in terms of the intentions (goals) they achieve and the means used (movements) to achieve these goals (e.g., Heider)

• Chaminade (2002) investigated using neuroimaging the neural regions associated with goals and means


from means – a neuroimaging perspective • Participants saw an actor make Lego

constructions: participants viewed the goal alone (hand moving away from block in specified location); the means alone (the hand grasping and moving the block); or the entire action. All participants imitated action just observed


from means – a neuroimaging perspective • Findings– when participants imitated action or

means, the medial prefrontal cortex was activated; this region appears to play a critical role in inferring other people’s intentions

• When participants imitated goal the left premotor cortex activated

• Conclusion• In normally functioning adults imitating a

gesture activates neural regions associated with the intentions underlying the action

•


Mental simulation• Since imagery and perception activate

similar brain regions it seems reasonable to hypothesize that one way to reason is to simulate (or imagine) the consequence of performing a planned action

Motor CognitionMotor Cognition• Simulation theories of action understanding

• It has been proposed that actions of others are understood by putting yourself in their place (either by observation or imagination)

• This permits you to derive their intentions and generate an action plan (but how can you do this since intentions and actions are internal and unobservable?)


Mental simulation• It has been shown that practicing with mental imagery can

help participants in their performance of the task• It has been shown that mental imagery practice has positive

effects on complex motor skill learning (e.g., putting a golf ball)

• Yue & Cole (1992) showed compared finger strength of two groups– group 1 performed repeated isometric exercises; group 2 received motor imagery instruction and imagined making finger movements without actually making them

• Both groups had increased finger strength– group 1 by 30% and group 2 by 22%

• Conclusion– possible to increase strength without actually repeated muscle activation


Mental simulation• It has also been shown that viewing an action can

facilitate enactment of that action• Priming refers to the facilitation of processing by

previous performance of a task• Motor priming refers to the facilitative effect that

watching a movement or action has on making a similar motor response. Motor priming has been observed in a variety of experimental situations


Mental simulation• fMRI studies have shown that the neural difference

between motor imagery and motor performance is not a matter of “what”, but “how much”

• i.e., similar brain regions are activated, but the level of activation is significantly lower; in one study imagery activation was 30% of that found in actual execution (Roth, 1996)


Mental simulation• Ruby & Decety (2001) Nature Neuroscience

investigated the question of agency• Background—if viewing an action activates regions

involved in performing an action, how do people distinguish actions they perform vs those they observe (i.e., attribution of action to self or another agent)

• Previous studies have shown that the first-person perspective (imagining oneself) is associated with activation of inferior parietal, premotor, and SMA on left side


Mental simulation• This study asked what areas are activated when we imagine

not ourselves performing an action, but another person performing that action

• Method• Participants were scanned while they simulated everyday

actions (e.g., winding a watch) with right hand (all Ps were right handed)

• Ps instructed to imagine themselves perform the action or to imagine another person performing the action

• Perspectives initiated by presenting a photo or from a spoken sentence describing the action


Conclusions• First person perspective versus imaging another

person acting was associated with activation of common neural resources

• Consistent with notion that a common code is used to perceive, imagine, and produce actions

• However, specific regions are activated when imagining oneself performing an action versus another person. These regions may be used to determine agency


Mental simulation• Results

• Both self perspective and other perspective activated common regions – supplementary motor area (SMA), premotor cortex, precuneus (an area located in parietal lobe), and occipital-temporal lobe

• However, when compared to the first-person perspective, the third-person perspective selectively activated the frontopolar cortex, the precuneus, and the right inferior portion of the parietal lobe

• See figure in next slide

Ruby & Decety (2001)Ruby & Decety (2001)

Motor Cognition & MemoryMotor Cognition & Memory• Memory for action

• Subject-performed task (SPT) paradigm requires participant(P) to perform actions according to verbal instructions given by experimenter (e.g., roll the ball, fold the paper, lift the pen) at study

• At test P’s memory for these actions is tested• Control condition– P hears instructions but does

not perform actions• Result—memory for enacted action phrases is

superior to that for events encoded without enactmentPresentation relies on Nilsson (2000) In Craik and Tulving Oxford Handbook of memory

Motor Cognition & MemoryMotor Cognition & Memory• Memory for action--theories

• Non-strategic encoding theory of Cohen• This theory proposed that enacted actions are

encoded nonstrategically unlike verbal and other types of events


• Multimodal theory of Backman and Nilsson (1984, 1985)• Enactment during encoding automatically leads to

multimodal processing, which produces a rich encoding of information (multimodal because there is auditory, visual, and haptic input) in SPT condition

• subsequently proposed that physical (perceptual) properties were encoded nonstrategically, whereas verbal components were encoded strategically.

• SPTs contained verbal and physical properties whereas VTs contained verbal component only (Backman et al. 1986)


• (Backman et al. 1989) proposed that the physical component of the dual code is encoded incidentally and retrieved implicitly, whereas verbal component is encoded intentionally and retrieved explicitly


• Engelkamp and Zimmer (1984, 1985 etc.) proposed that encoding SPTs is governed by separate motor, visual, and verbal programs that produce separate modality-specific representations

• Motor encoding is more efficient than the other types of encoding and this results in the enactment effect


• Motor coding improves item-specific encoding, whereas visual and verbal processing result in relational encoding between the items

• Two types of relational encoding: 1. integration of actions within a list; 2. integration of noun and verb in a command

• Hypothesized that type 1 integration is independent of enactment, and type 2 integration is hindered by enactment

Motor Cognition & MemoryMotor Cognition & Memory• Memory for action—data in support of Cohen• 1. no levels of processing effect• 2. no primacy effect• 3. no generation effect• 4. no rate of processing effect• 5. no difference in memory performance for

children of different ages, for mentally retarded and controls or for elderly.

• These results all support notion that enactment (in contrast to verbal encoding) does not require strategic processing at encoding as hypothesized by Cohen

Motor Cognition & MemoryMotor Cognition & MemoryMemory for action—data in support of multimodal coding theoryThese data are supported by studies that have used a divided attention as Ps encode SPTs at study (e.g., bounce the ball). At test memory for perceptual (color of object) and conceptual aspects (recall SPT) was tested (from Backman, Nilsson, Herlitz, Nyberg, & Stigsdotter, 1991)Results shown in next slide

Motor Cognition & MemoryMotor Cognition & Memory

0

5

10

15

20

25

verbal color

full

divided

Motor Cognition & MemoryMotor Cognition & MemoryMemory for action—data in support of multimodal coding theoryThis next experiment very similar to previous one:

Ps encode SPTs at study (e.g., bounce the ball) under full and divided attention. At test memory for perceptual (weight of object) and conceptual aspects (recall SPT) was tested (from Backman, Nilsson, Herlitz, Nyberg, & Stigsdotter, 1991)Results shown in next slide

Motor Cognition & MemoryMotor Cognition & Memory

0

5

10

15

20

25

verbal weight

full

divided

Motor Cognition & MemoryMotor Cognition & MemoryConclusions

•recall of perceptual components is less strongly affected by DA than recall of the verbal instruction•Supports hypothesis that verbal component requires strategic processing and physical (perceptual) component is more automatic or non-strategic•Potential problem with experiment is that color recall is a form of cued recall, whereas verbal recall is a form of free recall. (This problem was addressed in Backman et. al. 1993).

What’s a tool?What’s a tool?

“a manipulable object that is used to transform an actor’s motor output into a predictable mechanical action for the purpose of attaining a specific goal (Frey, 2007)”

• Simple vs. complex tools

- Simple tools amplify the movement of the upper limbs (e.g., using a stick to extend reach)

- Complex tools provide a mechanical advantage and convert hand movements into qualitatively different actions (e.g., using scissors to cut paper)

colour of the toolfunction of the tool

manner of grasping the tool

how the tool physically is used

identity of the recipient

colour of the recipient

learned motor skill

What do I need to know to use this tool?What do I need to know to use this tool?

Memory SystemsMemory Systems

knowing “how”knowing “what”

DeclarativeMemory

DeclarativeMemory

Tool Attributes

Functional Associative

Perceptual

Motor Skill Acquisition

Skilled ToolUse

Tool Grasping

Grasp-to-MoveGrasp-to-Use

Memory for ToolsMemory for Tools

?

?

Overview of Roy & Park Overview of Roy & Park (2010)(2010)

• Investigated memory systems involved in the acquisition of different types of complex tool knowledge in a single study

• Examined extent to which an amnesic individual could acquire knowledge and skills related to novel complex tools

Why study amnesia?

- Individuals with amnesia are impaired in acquiring new declarative knowledge, but have intact procedural learning

Ideal population to study dissociation between declarative and procedural aspects of tool knowledge!

MethodMethodMethodMethod

Participants• D.A. - 58 year old man with 17 years of education - Diagnosed with retrograde and anterograde amnesia after contracting herpes encephalitis in 1993

• 6 healthy age and education-matched controls (3 males, 3 females)

Neuroanatomical Profile Cognitive Functioning

Damaged / Impaired

Medial temporal lobe structures (bilaterally), right anterior temporal lobe

Delayed memory

Spared / Unimpaired

Dorsal frontal, superior and inferior parietal, and posterior cingulate regions

Immediate memory, visual naming, fluency, digit span, and executive functioning

Materials

• Tool function, manner of grasping, or manner of use cannot be inferred based on physical appearance

• Tools were designed to act on a recipient (e.g., plastic wheel) to perform a specific function (e.g., move wheel down a path)

• 15 novel unimanual complex tools constructed using K’NEX

MethodMethod

Example of Novel Complex ToolExample of Novel Complex Tool

ProcedureProcedureProcedureProcedure

S1 S2 S3

3 days 3 weeks

• Each session (S1, S2, S3) had 3 phases:

1) Pre-test 2) Training 3) Post-test

2) Training Phase - 2 blocks (10 target tools x 2)

- Video demonstration followed by practice - Limit of 90 seconds to complete one errorless trial - Experimenter provided feedback

ProcedureProcedure

1) Pre-test - Recall test (e.g. tool function, tool colour) - Recognition test - Grasp-to-command - Use-to-command

3) Post-test (same format as Pre-test)

- Grasp-to-command- Use-to-command- Use-to-command Recipient cued (RC) trial

ProcedureProcedure

• Task order remained the same across sessions except....

D.A.’s S3 Post-test- Recall test- Recognition test- Grasp-to-command- Use-to-command- Use-to-command Recipient cued (RC) trial

Changes made to bring D. A.’s performance off the floor

HypothesesHypotheses

1) D.A. would demonstrate unimpaired motor skill acquisition associated with novel complex tools (i.e., becoming faster in using the tools across training trials)

2) D.A. would be impaired in his ability to recall the properties (functional and perceptual) of the novel tools

3) D.A. would be impaired on tasks that required him to consciously demonstrate the appropriate grasp and trained use of the novel complex tools.

4) There would be no effect of the 3-week delay on measures of procedural memory in either D.A. and controls, but that there would be an effect of the 3-week delay on measures of declarative memory in the controls

TrainingTraining

(3 days) (3 weeks)

• No differences between D.A. and controls in any training trial

• Completion time decreased by approximately 3.4 seconds per trial in controls and 6.3 seconds per trial in D.A.

• No effect of the 3-week delay found in either D.A. or controls

(3 days) (3 weeks) (3 days) (3 weeks)

RecallRecall

• For functional associative recall, D.A.’s performance was worse than controls in all trials except in S3 Post

• For perceptual recall, D.A.’s performance was worse than controls in all trials except in S3 Pre and S3 Post

• Performance for controls is significantly worse after the 3-week delay for both categories

(3 days) (3 weeks)

Grasp-to-commandGrasp-to-command

• D.A.’s grasp-to-command accuracy was worse than controls only in S3 Post

• Grasp-to-command accuracy in controls was worse after the 3-week delay

(3 days) (3 weeks) (3 days) (3 weeks)

Use-to-commandUse-to-command

• D.A.’s completion time was worse than controls at S2 Post and S3 Pre, and his accuracy was worse than controls at all trials

• Controls were slower and less accurate after the 3-week delay

• D.A.’s performance on both measures in the RC trial was better with the target tools than the lure tools

DeclarativeMemory

Tool Attributes

Functional Associative

Perceptual

Motor Skill Acquisition

Skilled ToolUse

Grasp-to-Move

Skilled Tool Use

ConclusionConclusion

Grasp-to-UseGrasp-to-Use

Tool Grasping

Date post:	06-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	winda
View:	29 times
Download:	0 times

Motor Cognition

Documents