Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, 50 Township Line Road, Elkins Park, PA 19027, United States.
Neuropsychologia. 2013 Jun;51(7):1224-33. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.03.017. Epub 2013 Apr 6.
Previous evidence suggests that distinct fronto-parietal regions may be involved in representing action kinematics (means) and action results (outcome) during action observation. However, the evidence is contradictory with respect to the precise regions that are critical for each type of representation. Additionally unknown is the degree to which ability to detect action means and outcome during observation is related to action production performance. We used a behavioral task to evaluate the ability of healthy and left-hemisphere stroke participants to detect differences between pairs of videos that dissociated object-related action means (e.g., wiping with circular or straight movement) and/or outcome (e.g., applying or removing detergent). We expected that deficits in detecting action means would be associated with spatiomotor gesture production deficits, whereas deficits in detecting action outcome would predict impairments in complex naturalistic action. We also hypothesized a posterior to anterior gradient in the regions critical for each type of representation, disproportionately affecting means and outcome encoding, respectively. Results indicated that outcome--but not means--detection predicted naturalistic action performance in stroke participants. Regression and voxel lesion-symptom mapping analyses of lesion data revealed that means--but not outcome--coding relies on the integrity of the left inferior parietal lobe, whereas no selective critical brain region could be identified for outcome detection. Thus, means and outcome representations are dissociable at both the behavioral and neuroanatomical levels. Furthermore, the data are consistent with a degree of parallelism between action perception and production tasks. Finally, they reinforce the evidence for a critical role of the left inferior parietal lobule in the representation of action means, whereas action outcome may rely on a more distributed neural circuit.
先前的证据表明,在进行动作观察时,不同的额顶区域可能分别参与表示动作运动学(手段)和动作结果(结果)。然而,关于对于每种表示形式至关重要的精确区域,证据存在矛盾。此外,在观察期间检测动作手段和结果的能力与动作产生表现的相关程度仍然未知。我们使用行为任务来评估健康人和左半球中风参与者检测一对视频之间差异的能力,这些视频分离了与物体相关的动作手段(例如,以圆形或直线运动擦拭)和/或结果(例如,涂抹或去除清洁剂)。我们预计,检测动作手段的缺陷与空间运动姿势产生的缺陷有关,而检测动作结果的缺陷则预示着复杂自然动作的损伤。我们还假设,对于每种表示形式的关键区域存在后到前的梯度,分别不成比例地影响手段和结果的编码。结果表明,结果(而不是手段)检测预测了中风参与者的自然动作表现。对病变数据的回归和体素病变症状映射分析表明,手段(而不是结果)编码依赖于左侧下顶叶的完整性,而对于结果检测,没有可以识别的选择性关键大脑区域。因此,手段和结果的表示在行为和神经解剖学水平上都是可分离的。此外,这些数据与动作感知和产生任务之间存在一定程度的平行性一致。最后,它们强化了左下方顶叶在动作手段表示中的关键作用的证据,而动作结果可能依赖于更分布式的神经回路。