A review of ideomotor approaches to perception, cognition, action, and language: advancing a cultural recycling hypothesis

Psychological Research

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 1-15

  Badets, Arnaud ^a   Koch, Iring ^b   Philipp, Andrea M ^b  

^a Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique   (France)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; BRAIN; COGNITION; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PERCEPTION; PHYSIOLOGY; SEMANTICS;

ANIMALS; BRAIN; COGNITION; CULTURE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PERCEPTION; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84955208816     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-014-0643-8     Document Type: Review

References (103)

1. Anderson, M. L. (2010). Neural reuse: a fundamental organizational principle of the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,33, 245–313.
2. Anderson, M. L., & Penner-Wilger, M. (2013). Neural reuse in the evolution and development of the brain: evidence for developmental homology? Developmental Psychobiology,55, 42–51.
3. Andres, M., Davare, M., Pesenti, M., Olivier, E., & Seron, X. (2004). Number magnitude and grip aperture interaction. NeuroReport,15, 2773–2777.
4. Andres, M., Michaux, N., & Pesenti, M. (2012). Common substrate for mental arithmetic and finger representation in the parietal cortex. NeuroImage,62, 1520–1528.
5. Andres, M., Olivier, E., & Badets, A. (2008). Action, words and numbers: a motor contribution to semantic processing? Current Directions in Psychological Science,17(5), 313–317.
6. Badets, A. (2013). Semantic sides of three-dimensional space representation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,36, 543.
7. Badets, A., Andres, M., Di Luca, S., & Pesenti, M. (2007). Number magnitude potentiates action judgements. Experimental Brain Research,180, 525–534.
8. Badets, A., Koch, I., & Toussaint, L. (2013). Role of an ideomotor mechanism in number processing. Experimental Psychology,60, 34–43.
9. Badets, A., & Pesenti, M. (2010). Creating number semantics through finger movement perception. Cognition,115, 46–53.
10. Badets, A., & Pesenti, M. (2011). Finger–number interaction: an ideomotor account. Experimental Psychology,58, 287–292.
11. Badets, A., Pesenti, M., & Olivier, E. (2010). Response–effect compatibility of finger-numeral configurations in arithmetical context. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,63, 16–22.
12. Baroody, A. J. (1987). Children’s mathematical thinking: a developmental framework for preschool, primary and special education teachers. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
13. Beck, B. B. (1980). Animal tool use behavior: The use and manufacture of tools by animals. New York: Garland STPM Press.
14. Berwick, R. C., Friederici, A. D., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2013). Evolution, brain, and the nature of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,17, 89–98.
15. Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex,19, 2767–2796.
16. Binkofski, F., Buccino, G., Posse, S., Seitz, R. J., Rizzolatti, G., & Freund, H. (1999). A fronto-parietal circuit for object manipulation in man: evidence from an fMRI-study. European Journal of Neuroscience,11, 3276–3286.
17. Bueti, D., & Walsh, V. (2009). The parietal cortex and the representation of time, space, number and other magnitudes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B,364, 1831–1840.
18. Butterworth, B. (1999). The mathematical brain. Macmillan.
19. Caligiore, D., & Fischer, M. H. (2013). Vision, action and language unified through embodiment. Psychological Research,77, 1–6.
20. Chiou, R. Y., Chang, E. C., Tzeng, O. J. L., & Wu, D. H. (2009). The common magnitude code underlying numerical and size processing for action but not for perception. Experimental Brain Research,194, 553–562.
21. Cisek, P., & Kalaska, J. F. (2001). Common codes for situated interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,24, 883–884.
22. Cohen, L., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Specialization within the ventral stream: the case for the visual word form area. NeuroImage,22, 466–476.
23. Connolly, J. D., Andersen, R. A., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). FMRI evidence for a ‘‘parietal reach region” in the human brain. Experimental Brain Research,153, 140–145.
24. Corballis, M. C. (2013). Mental time travel: a case for evolutionary continuity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,17, 5–6.
25. Culham, J. C., Danckert, S. L., DeSouza, J. F., Gati, J. S., Menon, R. S., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Visually guided grasping produces fMRI activation in dorsal but not ventral stream brain areas. Experimental Brain Research,153, 180–189.
26. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
27. Dehaene, S. (2005). Evolution of human cortical circuits for reading and arithmetic: The ‘‘neuronal recycling’’ hypothesis. In S. Dehaene, J. R. Duhamel, M. Hauser, & G. Rizzolatti (Eds.), From monkey brain to human brain (pp. 133–157). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Dehaene, S. (2007). Les neurones de la lecture. Odile Jacob.
29. Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. Penguin Viking.
30. Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2007). Cultural recycling of cortical maps. Neuron,56, 384–398.
31. Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2011). The unique role of the visual word form area in reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,15, 254–262.
32. Dehaene, S., Tzourio, N., Frak, F., Raynaud, L., Mehler, J., & Mazoyer, B. (1996). Cerebral activations during number multiplication and comparison: a PET study. Neuropsychologia,34, 1097–1106.
33. Di Luca, S., Granà, A., Semenza, C., Seron, X., & Pesenti, M. (2006). Finger-digit compatibility in Arabic numeral processing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,59, 1648–1663.
34. Di Luca, S., Lefèvre, N., & Pesenti, M. (2010). Place and summation coding for canonical and non-canonical finger numeral representations. Cognition,117, 95–100.
35. Domahs, F., Krinzinger, H., & Willmes, K. (2008). Mind the gap between both hands: evidence for internal finger-based number representations in children’s mental calculation. Cortex,44, 359–367.
36. Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,27, 229–240.
37. Fischer, M. H., & Brugger, P. (2011). When digits help digits: spatial-numerical associations point to finger counting as prime example of embodied cognition. Frontiers in Psychology,2, 260. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00260.
38. Fischer, M. H., Castel, A. D., Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 6(6), 555–556. doi:10.1038/nn1066.
39. Gallese, V. (2008). Mirror neurons and the social nature of language: the neural exploitation hypothesis. Social Neuroscience,3, 317–333.
40. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology,22, 455–479.
41. Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences,8, 8–11.
42. Gibson, K. R. (1993). Generative interplay between technical capacities, social relations, imitation and cognition. In K. R. Gibson & T. Ingold (Eds.), Tools, language and cognition in human evolution (pp. 251–269). New York: Cambridge University Press.
43. Gracia-Bafalluy, M., & Noël, M. P. (2008). Does finger training increase young children’s numerical performance? Cortex,44, 368–375.
44. Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: with special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review,77, 73–99.
45. Hamilton, A. F., & Grafton, S. T. (2006). Goal representation in human anterior intraparietal sulcus. The Journal of Neuroscience,26, 1133–1137.
46. Hartsuiker, R. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2001). A common framework for language comprehension and language production? Behavioral and Brain Sciences,24, 887–888.
47. Herwig, A., & Waszak, F. (2009). Intention and attention in ideomotor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,62(2), 219–227.
48. Hommel, B., Alonso, D., & Fuentes, L. J. (2003). Acquisition and generalization of action effects. Visual Cognition,10, 965–986.
49. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavioural and Brain Sciences,24, 849–878.
50. Hubbard, J., Gazzaley, A., & Morsella, E. (2011). Traditional response interference from anticipated action outcomes: a response-effect compatibility paradigm. Acta Psychologia,138, 106–110.
51. Hubbard, E. M., Piazza, M., Pinel, P., & Dehaene, S. (2005). Interactions between number and space in the parietal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,6, 435–448.
52. Hurley, S. L. (2008). The shared circuits model (SCM): how control, mirroring, and simulation can enable imitation, deliberation, and mindreading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,31, 1–58.
53. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Dover Publications.
54. Kashima, Y., Bekkering, H., & Kashima, E. S. (2013). Communicative intentions can modulate the linguistic perception-action link. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,36, 33–34.
55. Keller, P. E., & Koch, I. (2006). Exogenous and endogenous response priming with auditory stimuli. Advances in Cognitive Psychology,2, 269–276.
56. Klein, E., Moeller, K., Willmes, K., Nuerk, H. C., & Domahs, F. (2011). The influence of implicit hand-based representations on mental arithmetic. Frontiers in Psychology,2, 197. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00197.
57. Koch, I., Keller, P., & Prinz, W. (2004). The ideomotor approach to action control: implications for skilled performance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,2, 362–375.
58. Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2002). Verbal response–effect compatibility. Memory and Cognition,30, 1297–1303.
59. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility–a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review,97, 253–270.
60. Kunde, W. (2001). Response–effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,27, 387–394.
61. Kunde, W., Elsner, K., & Kiesel, A. (2007a). No anticipation–no action: the role of anticipation in action and perception. Cognitive Processing,8, 71–78.
62. Kunde, W., Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2004). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57A, 87–106.
63. Kunde, W., Müsseler, J., & Heuer, H. (2007b). Spatial compatibility effects with tool use. Human Factors,49, 661–670.
64. Lindemann, O., Abolafia, J. M., Girardi, G., & Bekkering, H. (2007). Getting a grip on numbers: numerical magnitude priming in object grasping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,33, 1400–1409.
65. Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2007). Activation of actions rules in action observation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,33, 1118–1130.
66. Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2009). Movements, actions and tool-use actions: an ideomotor approach to imitation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,364, 2349–2358.
67. Meck, W. H. (1985). Postreinforcement signal-processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,11, 52–70.
68. Melcher, T., Weidema, M., Eenhuistra, R. M., Hommel, B., & Gruber, O. (2008). The neural substrate of the ideomotor principle: an event-related fMRI analysis. NeuroImage,39, 1274–1288.
69. Meteyard, L., Rodriguez Cuadrado, S., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: a review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex,48, 88–804.
70. Moretto, G., & di Pellegrino, G. (2008). Grasping numbers. Experimental Brain Research,188, 505–515.
71. Nattkemper, D., Ziessler, M., & Frensch, P. A. (2010). Binding in voluntary action control. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,34, 1092–1101.
72. Nieder, A., Freedman, D. J., & Miller, E. K. (2002). Representation of the quantity of visual items in the primate prefrontal cortex. Science,297, 1708–1711.
73. Nieder, A., & Miller, E. K. (2004). A parieto-frontal network for visual numerical information in the monkey. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,101, 7457–7462.
74. Osiurak, F. (2014). What neuropsychology tells us about human tool use? The four constraints theory (4CT): mechanics, Space, Time and Effort. Neuropsychology Review,24, 88–115.
75. Osiurak, F., & Badets, A. (2014). Pliers, not fingers: tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm. Cognition,130, 66–73.
76. Pesenti, M., Thioux, M., Seron, X., & De Volder, A. (2000). Neuroanatomical substrate of Arabic number processing, numerical comparison and simple addition: a PET study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,121, 461–479.
77. Pfister, R., Janczyk, M., Gressmann, M., Fournier, L. R., & Kunde, W. (2014). Good vibrations? Vibrotactile self-stimulation reveals anticipation of body-related action effects in motor control. Experimental Brain Research,232, 847–854.
78. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and brain sciences,36, 329-347. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001495.
79. Press, C. (2011). Action observation and robotic agents: learning and anthropomorphism. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,35, 1410–1418.
80. Price, C. J., & Devlin, J. T. (2003). The myth of the visual word form area. NeuroImage,19, 473–481.
81. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,9, 129–154.
82. Prinz, W., Aschersleben, G., & Koch, I. (2009). Cognition and action. In E. Morsella, J. Bargh, & P. M. Gollwitzer (Eds.), The Psychology of Action (Vol. 2, pp. 35–71)., Mechanisms of Human Action Oxford: Oxford University Press.
83. Puce, A., Allison, T., Asgari, M., Gore, J. C., & McCarthy, G. (1996). Differential sensitivity of human visual cortex to faces, letterstrings, and textures: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. The Journal of Neuroscience,16, 5205–5215.
84. Raos, V., Umiltá, M. A., Murata, A., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2006). Functional properties of grasping-related neurons in the ventral premotor area F5 of the macaque monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology,95, 709–729.
85. Rivera, S. M., Reiss, A. L., Eckert, M. A., & Menon, V. (2005). Developmental changes in mental arithmetic: evidence for increased functional specialization in the left inferior parietal cortex. Cerebral Cortex,15, 1779–1790.
86. Rizzolatti, G., & Arbib, M. A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in Neuroscience,21, 188–194.
87. Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience,27, 169–192.
88. Rizzolatti, G., & Sinigaglia, C. (2010). The functional role of the parieto-frontal mirror circuit: interpretations and misinterpretations. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,11, 264–274.
89. Sawamura, H., Shima, K., & Tanji, J. (2002). Numerical representation for action in the parietal cortex of the monkey. Nature,415, 918–922.
90. Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Perceptual resonance: action-induced modulation of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,11, 349–355.
91. Shin, Y. K., Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2010). A review of contemporary ideomotor theory. Psychological Bulletin,136, 943–974.
92. Stock, A., & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research,68, 176–188.
93. Sutter, C., Ladwig, S., Oehl, M., & Müsseler, J. (2012). Age effects on controlling tools with sensorimotor transformations. Frontiers in Psychology,3, 573. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00573.
94. Thompson, R. F., Mayers, K. S., Robertson, R. T., & Patterson, C. J. (1970). Number coding in association cortex of the cat. Science,168, 271–273.
95. Umiltà, M., Escola, L., Intskirveli, I., Grammont, F., Rochat, M., Caruana, F., et al. (2008). How pliers become fingers in the monkey motor system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,105, 2209–2213.
96. Umiltà, C., Priftis, K., & Zorzi, M. (2009). The spatial representation of numbers: evidence from neglect and pseudoneglect. Experimental Brain Research,192, 561–569.
97. Vigneau, M., Jobard, G., Mazoyer, B., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. (2005). Word and non-word reading: what role for the visual word form area? NeuroImage,27, 694–705.
98. Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Science,7, 483–488.
99. Waszak, F., Cardoso-Leite, P., & Hughes, G. (2012). Action effect anticipation: neurophysiological basis and functional consequences. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews,36, 943–959.
100. Waszak, F., Wascher, E., Keller, P., Koch, I., Aschersleben, G., Rosenbaum, D. A., & Prinz, W. (2005). Intention-based and stimulus-based mechanisms in action selection. Experimental Brain Research,162, 346–356.
101. Wolpert, D. M., Ghahramani, Z., & Flanagan, J. R. (2001). Perspectives and problems in motor learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,5, 487–494.
102. Wood, G., Nuerk, H. C., Willmes, K., & Fischer, M. H. (2008). On the cognitive link between space and number: a meta-analysis of the SNARC effect. Psychology Science Quarterly,50, 489–525.
103. Ziessler, M., Nattkemper, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2004). The role of anticipation and intention in the learning of effects of self-performed actions. Psychological Research,68, 163–175.