Limits...
The Extrastriate Body Area Computes Desired Goal States during Action Planning.

Zimmermann M, Verhagen L, de Lange FP, Toni I - eNeuro (2016)

Bottom Line: Second, the contributions of EBA are earlier in time than those of a caudal intraparietal region known to specify the action plan.Third, the contributions of EBA are particularly important when desired and current object configurations differ, and multiple courses of actions are possible.These findings specify the temporal and functional characteristics for a mechanism that integrates perceptual processing with motor planning.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 EN Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institute, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden.

ABSTRACT
How do object perception and action interact at a neural level? Here we test the hypothesis that perceptual features, processed by the ventral visuoperceptual stream, are used as priors by the dorsal visuomotor stream to specify goal-directed grasping actions. We present three main findings, which were obtained by combining time-resolved transcranial magnetic stimulation and kinematic tracking of grasp-and-rotate object manipulations, in a group of healthy human participants (N = 22). First, the extrastriate body area (EBA), in the ventral stream, provides an initial structure to motor plans, based on current and desired states of a grasped object and of the grasping hand. Second, the contributions of EBA are earlier in time than those of a caudal intraparietal region known to specify the action plan. Third, the contributions of EBA are particularly important when desired and current object configurations differ, and multiple courses of actions are possible. These findings specify the temporal and functional characteristics for a mechanism that integrates perceptual processing with motor planning.

No MeSH data available.


Effect of TMS on goal-state error. Absolute differences (in degrees) between the desired orientation of the bar (as indicated by the target LED) and the final orientation of the bar for HOLD actions (left column) and ROTATE actions (right column) with SINGLE (top row) and MULTIPLE (bottom row) grip-options. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4821904&req=5

Figure 4: Effect of TMS on goal-state error. Absolute differences (in degrees) between the desired orientation of the bar (as indicated by the target LED) and the final orientation of the bar for HOLD actions (left column) and ROTATE actions (right column) with SINGLE (top row) and MULTIPLE (bottom row) grip-options. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.

Mentions: The main result of this study concerns the effect of timing and location of the TMS intervention on movement accuracy as a function of action-type and grip-options during multiple-option rotation trials. Figure 4 illustrates that the effect of TMS intervention was specific to the stimulation of EBA when TMS was delivered early during planning. Namely, the tms-site (EBA, IPS, SHAM) × tms-time (EARLY, LATE) interaction (F(2,42) = 3.28, p = 0.047) was driven by larger goal-state errors following early stimulation of EBA compared with stimulation of IPS (t(21) = 2.99, p = 0.007), as well as, as a trend toward significance, compared with SHAM TMS (t(21) = 1.90, p = 0.07). Furthermore, the same interaction is not significant for single-option ROTATION trials, and single- and multiple-option HOLD trials (all p > 0.20), which is reflected in a significant four-way interaction among tms-site (EBA, IPS), tms-time (EARLY, LATE), action-type (HOLD, ROTATE), and grip-options (SINGLE, MULTIPLE) on goal-state error (F(1,21) = 6.10, p = 0.02; Fig. 4). For reference, the 3 × 2 × 2 × 2 interaction that also considered SHAM TMS revealed a trend toward significance (F(2,42) = 2.90, p = 0.066).


The Extrastriate Body Area Computes Desired Goal States during Action Planning.

Zimmermann M, Verhagen L, de Lange FP, Toni I - eNeuro (2016)

Effect of TMS on goal-state error. Absolute differences (in degrees) between the desired orientation of the bar (as indicated by the target LED) and the final orientation of the bar for HOLD actions (left column) and ROTATE actions (right column) with SINGLE (top row) and MULTIPLE (bottom row) grip-options. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4821904&req=5

Figure 4: Effect of TMS on goal-state error. Absolute differences (in degrees) between the desired orientation of the bar (as indicated by the target LED) and the final orientation of the bar for HOLD actions (left column) and ROTATE actions (right column) with SINGLE (top row) and MULTIPLE (bottom row) grip-options. Error bars indicate standard error of the mean.
Mentions: The main result of this study concerns the effect of timing and location of the TMS intervention on movement accuracy as a function of action-type and grip-options during multiple-option rotation trials. Figure 4 illustrates that the effect of TMS intervention was specific to the stimulation of EBA when TMS was delivered early during planning. Namely, the tms-site (EBA, IPS, SHAM) × tms-time (EARLY, LATE) interaction (F(2,42) = 3.28, p = 0.047) was driven by larger goal-state errors following early stimulation of EBA compared with stimulation of IPS (t(21) = 2.99, p = 0.007), as well as, as a trend toward significance, compared with SHAM TMS (t(21) = 1.90, p = 0.07). Furthermore, the same interaction is not significant for single-option ROTATION trials, and single- and multiple-option HOLD trials (all p > 0.20), which is reflected in a significant four-way interaction among tms-site (EBA, IPS), tms-time (EARLY, LATE), action-type (HOLD, ROTATE), and grip-options (SINGLE, MULTIPLE) on goal-state error (F(1,21) = 6.10, p = 0.02; Fig. 4). For reference, the 3 × 2 × 2 × 2 interaction that also considered SHAM TMS revealed a trend toward significance (F(2,42) = 2.90, p = 0.066).

Bottom Line: Second, the contributions of EBA are earlier in time than those of a caudal intraparietal region known to specify the action plan.Third, the contributions of EBA are particularly important when desired and current object configurations differ, and multiple courses of actions are possible.These findings specify the temporal and functional characteristics for a mechanism that integrates perceptual processing with motor planning.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6525 EN Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institute, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden.

ABSTRACT
How do object perception and action interact at a neural level? Here we test the hypothesis that perceptual features, processed by the ventral visuoperceptual stream, are used as priors by the dorsal visuomotor stream to specify goal-directed grasping actions. We present three main findings, which were obtained by combining time-resolved transcranial magnetic stimulation and kinematic tracking of grasp-and-rotate object manipulations, in a group of healthy human participants (N = 22). First, the extrastriate body area (EBA), in the ventral stream, provides an initial structure to motor plans, based on current and desired states of a grasped object and of the grasping hand. Second, the contributions of EBA are earlier in time than those of a caudal intraparietal region known to specify the action plan. Third, the contributions of EBA are particularly important when desired and current object configurations differ, and multiple courses of actions are possible. These findings specify the temporal and functional characteristics for a mechanism that integrates perceptual processing with motor planning.

No MeSH data available.