Limits...
Semantics in the motor system: motor-cortical Beta oscillations reflect semantic knowledge of end-postures for object use.

van Elk M, van Schie HT, van den Heuvel R, Bekkering H - Front Hum Neurosci (2010)

Bottom Line: Time frequency analysis indicated that the execution of actions resulting in a meaningless compared to a meaningful end posture was accompanied by a stronger beta-desynchronization towards the end of the movement and a stronger subsequent beta-rebound after posture-onset.The effect in the beta-frequency band was localized to premotor, parietal and medial frontal areas and could not be attributed to differences in timing or movement complexity between meaningful and meaningless actions.This suggests that semantic object knowledge is indeed represented in motor-related brain areas, organized around specific end postures associated with the use of objects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen Nijmegen, Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
In the present EEG study we investigated whether semantic knowledge for object use is represented in motor-related brain areas. Subjects were required to perform actions with everyday objects and to maintain either a meaningful or a meaningless end posture with the object. Analysis of the EEG data focused on the beta-frequency band, as previous studies have indicated that the maintenance of a posture is reflected in stronger beta-oscillations. Time frequency analysis indicated that the execution of actions resulting in a meaningless compared to a meaningful end posture was accompanied by a stronger beta-desynchronization towards the end of the movement and a stronger subsequent beta-rebound after posture-onset. The effect in the beta-frequency band was localized to premotor, parietal and medial frontal areas and could not be attributed to differences in timing or movement complexity between meaningful and meaningless actions. Together these findings directly show that the motor system is differentially activated during the execution and maintenance of semantically correct or incorrect end postures. This suggests that semantic object knowledge is indeed represented in motor-related brain areas, organized around specific end postures associated with the use of objects.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Overview of experimental procedure. (A) Each trial started with a central fixation cross which was presented for 3000–4000 ms, while the subject was holding the hand at the button box. (B) A picture on the screen indicated by which grip subjects were required to grasp an object. (C) Upon initiating the movement the picture was removed from the screen and the subject grasped the indicated object with the pre-specified grip. (D) When the subject had reached the final end posture with the object they were required to maintain this posture for 4 s. (E) An instruction cue on the screen instructed the subject to put the object back on the table and to return to the starting position, upon which the next trial was initiated.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2821178&req=5

Figure 3: Overview of experimental procedure. (A) Each trial started with a central fixation cross which was presented for 3000–4000 ms, while the subject was holding the hand at the button box. (B) A picture on the screen indicated by which grip subjects were required to grasp an object. (C) Upon initiating the movement the picture was removed from the screen and the subject grasped the indicated object with the pre-specified grip. (D) When the subject had reached the final end posture with the object they were required to maintain this posture for 4 s. (E) An instruction cue on the screen instructed the subject to put the object back on the table and to return to the starting position, upon which the next trial was initiated.

Mentions: The experimental paradigm is schematically represented in Figure 3. Each trial started after the subjects held their finger pressed on the central button of the button box. After 4000 ms a picture appeared on the screen, which indicated how to grasp one of the 15 objects placed in front of the participant. Subjects were required to release the button box as soon as they were prepared to grasp the object that was presented on the picture with the grip specified. After the button box was released the picture disappeared from the screen and was replaced by a fixation cross in the center of the screen. Subjects grasped the object in the manner that was indicated by the picture on the screen and brought the object towards the prototypical goal location of the object (e.g. mobile telephone to the ear; cup to the mouth). When subjects had reached the end posture with the object they were required to maintain this position for 4 s and to minimize head and eye movements during the posture interval. After 4 s an instruction cue appeared on the screen, instructing the subject to put the object back on the table and to press the central button of the button box again, upon which the next trial was initiated.


Semantics in the motor system: motor-cortical Beta oscillations reflect semantic knowledge of end-postures for object use.

van Elk M, van Schie HT, van den Heuvel R, Bekkering H - Front Hum Neurosci (2010)

Overview of experimental procedure. (A) Each trial started with a central fixation cross which was presented for 3000–4000 ms, while the subject was holding the hand at the button box. (B) A picture on the screen indicated by which grip subjects were required to grasp an object. (C) Upon initiating the movement the picture was removed from the screen and the subject grasped the indicated object with the pre-specified grip. (D) When the subject had reached the final end posture with the object they were required to maintain this posture for 4 s. (E) An instruction cue on the screen instructed the subject to put the object back on the table and to return to the starting position, upon which the next trial was initiated.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2821178&req=5

Figure 3: Overview of experimental procedure. (A) Each trial started with a central fixation cross which was presented for 3000–4000 ms, while the subject was holding the hand at the button box. (B) A picture on the screen indicated by which grip subjects were required to grasp an object. (C) Upon initiating the movement the picture was removed from the screen and the subject grasped the indicated object with the pre-specified grip. (D) When the subject had reached the final end posture with the object they were required to maintain this posture for 4 s. (E) An instruction cue on the screen instructed the subject to put the object back on the table and to return to the starting position, upon which the next trial was initiated.
Mentions: The experimental paradigm is schematically represented in Figure 3. Each trial started after the subjects held their finger pressed on the central button of the button box. After 4000 ms a picture appeared on the screen, which indicated how to grasp one of the 15 objects placed in front of the participant. Subjects were required to release the button box as soon as they were prepared to grasp the object that was presented on the picture with the grip specified. After the button box was released the picture disappeared from the screen and was replaced by a fixation cross in the center of the screen. Subjects grasped the object in the manner that was indicated by the picture on the screen and brought the object towards the prototypical goal location of the object (e.g. mobile telephone to the ear; cup to the mouth). When subjects had reached the end posture with the object they were required to maintain this position for 4 s and to minimize head and eye movements during the posture interval. After 4 s an instruction cue appeared on the screen, instructing the subject to put the object back on the table and to press the central button of the button box again, upon which the next trial was initiated.

Bottom Line: Time frequency analysis indicated that the execution of actions resulting in a meaningless compared to a meaningful end posture was accompanied by a stronger beta-desynchronization towards the end of the movement and a stronger subsequent beta-rebound after posture-onset.The effect in the beta-frequency band was localized to premotor, parietal and medial frontal areas and could not be attributed to differences in timing or movement complexity between meaningful and meaningless actions.This suggests that semantic object knowledge is indeed represented in motor-related brain areas, organized around specific end postures associated with the use of objects.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen Nijmegen, Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
In the present EEG study we investigated whether semantic knowledge for object use is represented in motor-related brain areas. Subjects were required to perform actions with everyday objects and to maintain either a meaningful or a meaningless end posture with the object. Analysis of the EEG data focused on the beta-frequency band, as previous studies have indicated that the maintenance of a posture is reflected in stronger beta-oscillations. Time frequency analysis indicated that the execution of actions resulting in a meaningless compared to a meaningful end posture was accompanied by a stronger beta-desynchronization towards the end of the movement and a stronger subsequent beta-rebound after posture-onset. The effect in the beta-frequency band was localized to premotor, parietal and medial frontal areas and could not be attributed to differences in timing or movement complexity between meaningful and meaningless actions. Together these findings directly show that the motor system is differentially activated during the execution and maintenance of semantically correct or incorrect end postures. This suggests that semantic object knowledge is indeed represented in motor-related brain areas, organized around specific end postures associated with the use of objects.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus