Are tool properties always processed automatically? The role of tool use context and task complexity

Cortex

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1679-1693

  Randerath, Jennifer ^a   Martin, Kimberley R ^b   Frey, Scott H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

Action planning; Grasping; Rule; Tools

Indexed keywords

ANTICIPATION; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BRAIN FUNCTION; COGNITION; GRIP SELECTION; HAND GRIP; ORIENTATION; PLANNING; TASK PERFORMANCE; TOOL USE; WORKING MEMORY;

EID: 84878946155     PISSN: 00109452     EISSN: 19738102     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.08.016     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Ansuini C., Giosa L., Turella L., Altoè G., Castiello U. An object for an action, the same object for other actions: Effects on hand shaping. Experimental Brain Research 2008, 185(1):111-119.
2. Assmus A., Giessing C., Weiss P.H., Fink G.R. Functional interactions during the retrieval of conceptual action knowledge: An fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19(6):1004-1012.
3. Bach P., Peelen M.V., Tipper S.P. On the role of object information in action observation: An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex 2010, 20(12):2798-2809.
4. Barde L.H., Buxbaum L.J., Moll A.D. Abnormal reliance on object structure in apraxics' learning of novel object-related actions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 2007, 13(6):997-1008.
5. Bartolo A., Cubelli R., Della Sala S., Drei S. Pantomimes are special gestures which rely on working memory. Brain and Cognition 2003, 53(3):483-494.
6. Bub D.N., Masson M.E. Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2010, 36(2):341-358.
7. Bub D.N., Masson M.E., Cree G.S. Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition 2008, 106(1):27-58.
8. Buxbaum L.J., Kalénine S. Action knowledge, visuomotor activation, and embodiment in the two action systems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2010, 1191(1):201-218.
9. Buxbaum L.J., Saffran E.M. Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: Dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects. Brain and Language 2002, 82(2):179-199.
10. Castiello U. Grasping a fruit: Selection for action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1996, 22(3):582-603.
11. Chen C.H., Zeki S. Frontoparietal activation distinguishes face and space from artifact concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2011, 23(9):2558-2568.
12. Creem-Regehr S.H., Lee J.N. Neural representations of graspable objects: Are tools special?. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22(3):457-469.
13. Creem S.H., Proffitt D.R. Grasping objects by their handles: A necessary interaction between cognition and action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27(1):218-228.
14. Daprati E., Nico D., Duval S., Lacquaniti F. Different motor imagery modes following brain damage. Cortex 2010, 46(8):1016-1030.
15. Frey S.H. What puts the how in where? Tool use and the divided visual streams hypothesis. Cortex 2007, 43(3):368-375.
16. Gazzaley A., Nobre A.C. Top-down modulation: Bridging selective attention and working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2011, 16(2):129-135.
17. Gibson J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception 1986, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
18. Goldenberg G., Hagmann S. Tool use and mechanical problem solving in apraxia. Neuropsychologia 1998, 36(7):581-589.
19. Goldenberg G., Spatt J. The neural basis of tool use. Brain 2009, 132(6):1645-1655.
20. Grafton S.T., Fadiga L., Arbib M.A., Rizzolatti G. Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. NeuroImage 1997, 6(4):231-236.
21. Hodges J.R., Bozeat S., Lambon Ralph M.A., Patterson K., Spatt J. The role of conceptual knowledge in object use evidence from semantic dementia. Brain 2000, 123(Pt 9):1913-1925.
22. Ishibashi R., Lambon Ralph M.A., Saito S., Pobric G. Different roles of lateral anterior temporal lobe and inferior parietal lobule in coding function and manipulation tool knowledge: Evidence from an rTMS study. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49(5):1128-1135.
23. Jax S.A., Buxbaum L.J. Response interference between functional and structural actions linked to the same familiar object. Cognition 2010, 115(2):350-355.
24. Johnson-Frey S.H. The neural bases of complex tool use in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8(2):71-78.
25. Johnson-Frey S.H., McCarty M., Keen R. Reaching beyond spatial perception: Effects of intended future actions on visually guided prehension. Visual Cognition 2004, 11(2-3):371-399.
26. Johnson S.H. Imagining the impossible: Intact motor representations in hemiplegics. NeuroReport 2000, 11(4):729-732.
27. Johnson S.H. Thinking ahead: The case for motor imagery in prospective judgments of prehension. Cognition 2000, 74:33-70.
28. Karnath H.O., Perenin M.T. Cortical control of visually guided reaching: Evidence from patients with optic ataxia. Cerebral Cortex 2005, 15(10):1561-1569.
29. Marangon M., Jacobs S., Frey S.H. Evidence for context sensitivity of grasp representations in human parietal and premotor cortices. Journal of Neurophysiology 2011, 105(5):2536-2546.
30. McNair N.A., Harris I.M. Disentangling the contributions of grasp and action representations in the recognition of manipulable objects. Experimental Brain Research 2012, 220(1):71-77.
31. Milner A.D., Goodale M.A. Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia 2008, 46(3):774-785.
32. Morrison A.B., Chein J.M. Does working memory training work? The promise and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2011, 18(1):46-60.
33. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9(1):97-113.
34. Osiurak F., Jarry C., Allain P., Aubin G., Etcharry-Bouyx F., Richard I., et al. Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage: The technical reasoning model. Cortex 2009, 45(6):769-783.
35. Osiurak F., Jarry C., Le Gall D. Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: Toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. Psychological Review 2010, 117(2):517-540.
36. Osiurak F., Jarry C., Le Gall D. Re-examining the gesture engram hypothesis. New perspectives on apraxia of tool use. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49(3):299-312.
37. Randerath J., Goldenberg G., Spijkers W., Li Y., Hermsdörfer J. Different left brain regions are essential for grasping a tool compared with its subsequent use. NeuroImage 2010, 53(1):171-180.
38. Randerath J., Goldenberg G., Spijkers W., Li Y., Hermsdörfer J. From pantomime to actual use: How affordances can facilitate actual tool-use. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49(9):2410-2416.
39. Randerath J., Li Y., Goldenberg G., Hermsdorfer J. Grasping tools: Effects of task and apraxia. Neuropsychologia 2009, 47(2):497-505.
40. Rice N.J., Valyear K.F., Goodale M.A., Milner A.D., Culham J.C. Orientation sensitivity to graspable objects: An fMRI adaptation study. NeuroImage 2007, 36(Suppl 2):T87-T93.
41. Rosenbaum D., Marchak F., Barnes H., Vaughan J., Slotta J., Jorgensen M. Constraints for action selection - overhand versus underhand grips. Attention and Performance 1990, 13:321-342.
42. Rosenbaum D.A., van Heugten C.M., Caldwell G.E. From cognition to biomechanics and back: The end-state comfort effect and the middle-is-faster effect. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam) 1996, 94(1):59-85.
43. Rosenbaum D.A., Vaughan J., Barnes H.J., Jorgensen M.J. Time course of movement planning: Selection of handgrips for object manipulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1992, 18(5):1058-1073.
44. Shaw R., Turvey M.T., Mace W. Ecological psychology: The consequence of a commitment to realism. Cognition and the Symbolic Processes 1982, 2:159-226.
45. Smith E.E., Jonides J. Neuroimaging analyses of human working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1998, 95(20):12061.
46. Spiegel M.A., Koester D., Weigelt M., Schack T. The costs of changing an intended action: Movement planning, but not execution, interferes with verbal working memory. Neuroscience Letters 2012, 509(2):82-86.
47. Stelmach G.E., Castiello U., Jeannerod M. Orienting the finger opposition space during prehension movements. Journal of Motor Behaviour 1994, 26(2):178-186.
48. Sunderland A., Wilkins L., Dineen R. Tool use and action planning in apraxia. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49(5):1275-1286.
49. Tucker M., Ellis R. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1998, 24(3):830-846.
50. Tunik E., Frey S.H., Grafton S.T. Virtual lesions of the anterior intraparietal area disrupt goal-dependent on-line adjustments of grasp. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8(4):505-511.
51. Tunik E., Lo O.Y., Adamovich S.V. Transcranial magnetic stimulation to the frontal operculum and supramarginal gyrus disrupts planning of outcome-based hand-object interactions. The Journal of Neuroscience 2008, 28(53):14422-14427.
52. Tunik E., Ortigue S., Adamovich S.V., Grafton S.T. Differential recruitment of anterior intraparietal sulcus and superior parietal lobule during visually guided grasping revealed by electrical neuroimaging. The Journal of Neuroscience 2008, 28(50):13615-13620.
53. Valyear K.F., Chapman C.S., Gallivan J.P., Mark R.S., Culham J.C. To use or to move: goal-set modulates priming when grasping real tools. Experimental Brain Research 2011, 212(1):125-142.
54. Valyear K.F., Culham J.C., Sharif N., Westwood D., Goodale M.A. A double dissociation between sensitivity to changes in object identity and object orientation in the ventral and dorsal visual streams: A human fMRI study. Neuropsychologia 2006, 44(2):218-228.
55. Valyear K.F., Gallivan J.P., McLean D.A., Culham J.C. fMRI repetition suppression for familiar but not arbitrary actions with tools. The Journal of Neuroscience 2012, 32(12):4247-4259.
56. Vingerhoets G., Vandamme K., Vercammen A. Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances. Brain and Cognition 2009, 69(3):481-489.
57. Weigelt M., Schack T. The development of end-state comfort planning in preschool children. Experimental Psychology 2010, 57(6):476-782.
58. Zhang W., Rosenbaum D.A. Planning for manual positioning: The end-state comfort effect for manual abduction-adduction. Experimental Brain Research 2008, 184(3):383-389.