Research reportPremotor cortex in observing erroneous action: an fMRI study
Introduction
How do we recognize others subjects’ actions? It is suggested that when we observe actions, their corresponding action schemata are triggered, including a ‘goodness-to-fit’ evaluation between the observed action and the triggered action schema [44], [46]. An action schema can be described on two levels, the goal of an action and its implementation [3], the latter of which can be defined by the actors’ movements and involved objects. Since the goal itself is not observable, the triggering of an action schema within the observing subject is necessarily based on at least one of the two observable components of implementation, i.e., objects and movements [7], [13], [14], [25].
Regarding cortical areas that are involved in action observation, research in humans [9], [26] and monkeys [21], [38], [45] indicates an outstanding role of the PMC. According to Rizzolatti and coworkers [44], in monkeys this cortex is a store of motor schemata. It responds whenever an observed action triggers a stored motor schema, and possibly also when both are subsequently subjected to a matching process. However, it remains unclear if observed objects and observed movements are processed differently within the PMC. The aim of our study was to clarify this question in the human PMC, using whole-brain fMRI.
We set out to dissociate both components of observed actions by manipulating objects and movements respectively. Subjects were scanned while observing actions and action slips, i.e., actions in which the implementation impedes the goal achievement [52]. Two types of action slips were employed. By violating the choice of an object, we realized actions with action-inappropriate objects (object errors). By violating a movement, we realized actions with action-inappropriate movements (movement errors). In clinical research, these two error types are also classified as ‘substitutional action slips’ and ‘qualitative action slips’, respectively [51]. In case that object-related observations and movement-related observations were processed differently within PMC, we expected these two types of errors to yield significantly different premotor activations.
Section snippets
Participants
Twelve healthy right-handed students (five female and seven male, aged 20–29 years, mean age 23.3) participated in the study. All had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Participants gave written consent prior to testing. The experimental standards were approved by the local ethics committee of the University of Leipzig.
Stimuli and procedure
Movies were presented that showed either correct actions, actions characterized by object errors, actions characterized by movement errors, or aimless object manipulations
Behavioral performance
Behavioral performance was assessed by error rates and by reaction times of correct responses. A repeated measures ANOVA with the factor CONDITION (correct action, object error, movement error and baseline) indicated a main effect for error rates (F(3,33)=14.6, P<0.0001) and reaction times (F(3,33)=32.44, P<0.0001) (Fig. 2). Single t-tests with a Bonferoni α-level correction revealed that, compared to the classification of correct actions and erroneous actions, the movement classification was
Discussion
The present study investigated whether the observable components of action, i.e., employed objects and performed movements, are processed differently within the PMC. To this end, each component was manipulated distinctly in an error detection paradigm. Our findings revealed vPMC activation during the observation of correct actions, and during the observation of both movement-related and object-related violations, relative to baseline. However, conditions correct action and movement error
Conclusion
The present findings support the view that the vPMC (BA 6) and its parietal input zone are crucial for the observation of actions in humans. Moreover, we demonstrated that by attracting attention to either objects or to movements in action observation it is possible to examine how different components of this premotor-parietal network within each hemisphere contribute to action analysis.
Acknowledgements
We thank Marcel Brass, Christian Fiebach, Andrea Gast-Sandmann, Sonja Lattner, Stefan Pollmann, Markus Ullsperger and Stefan Zysset for helpful comments on the manuscript and technical support, and Volker Bosch, Gabriele Lohmann and Karsten Müller for support in statistical analysis.
References (56)
- et al.
Empirical analysis of BOLD fMRI statistics. II. Spatially smoothed data collected under null-hypothesis and experimental conditions
NeuroImage
(1997) - et al.
Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream
Neuroimage
(2000) - et al.
Form and content: dissociating syntax and semantics in sentence comprehension
Neuron
(1999) - et al.
Visuomotor neurons: ambiguity of the discharge or ‘motor’ perception?
Int. J. Psychophysiol.
(2000) - et al.
Auditory language comprehension: An event-related fMRI study on the processing of syntactic and lexical information
Brain Lang.
(2000) - et al.
Generalisability, random effects and population inference
NeuroImage
(1998) - et al.
Lipsia — A new software system for the evaluation of functional magnetic resonance images of the human brain
Comput. Med. Imaging Graph.
(2001) - et al.
Parietofrontal circuits for action and space perception in the macaque monkey
Neuroimage
(2001) - et al.
Hemispheric control of motor function: a whole brain echo planar fMRI study
Psychiatry Res.
(1998) - et al.
Neurocognition of auditory sentence comprehension: event related fMRI reveals sensitivity to syntactic violations and task demands
Cogn. Brain Res.
(2000)
Hemispheric differences in mnemonic processing: the effects of left hemisphere interpretation
Neuropsychologia
Electrophysiological evidence of a perceptual precedence of global versus local visual information
Cogn. Brain Res.
Language within our grasp
Trends Neurosci.
Functional organization of the lateral premotor cortex: fMRI reveals different regions activated by anticipation of object properties, location and speed
Cogn. Brain Res.
Visual field differences in an object decision task
Brain Cogn.
Analysis of fMRI time-series revisited-again
NeuroImage
Empirical analysis of BOLD fMRI statistics. I. Spatially smoothed data collected under null-hypothesis conditions
NeuroImage
Broca’s region revisited: cytoarchitecture and intersubject variability
J. Comp. Neurol.
Perceptual structures and distributed motor control
Human anterior intraparietal area subserves prehension
Neurology
A fronto-parietal circuit for object manipulation in man: evidence from an fMRI-study
Eur. J. Neurosci.
A parieto-premotor network for object manipulation: evidence from neuroimaging
Exp. Brain Res.
Specific involvement of human parietal systems and the amygdala in the perception of biological motion
J. Neurosci.
Statistical analysis of multi-subject fMRI data: the assessment of focal activations
J. Magn. Reson. Imaging.
Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study
Eur. J. Neurosci.
Activation of Broca’s areas by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation
Hum. Brain Mapp.
Brain activity during observation of actions. Influence of action content and subject’s strategy
Brain
Action categories and the perception of biological motion
Perception
Cited by (109)
The visuo-sensorimotor substrate of co-speech gesture processing
2023, NeuropsychologiaError observation as a window on performance monitoring in social contexts? A systematic review
2023, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsA predictive processing framework of tool use
2021, CortexPerformance monitoring in the medial frontal cortex and related neural networks: From monitoring self actions to understanding others’ actions
2018, Neuroscience ResearchCitation Excerpt :However, it seems that the observed action must be related in some way to the observer, be it rewarding or punishing or that the observer will take the role of the actor in the same context. Otherwise, the pMFC seems not to be significantly engaged, as shown in studies in which participants observed movies of correct and incorrect everyday actions (de Bruijn et al., 2007; Manthey et al., 2003). Interestingly, even if the observed action outcome is irrelevant to the participant and not processed by the performance monitoring system, lateral premotor and parietal cortices encompassing areas with mirror neurons (see below) are involved (Manthey et al., 2003).