» Articles » PMID: 24672461

The Role of Action Representations in Thematic Object Relations

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2014 Mar 28
PMID 24672461
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

A number of studies have explored the role of associative/event-based (thematic) and categorical (taxonomic) relations in the organization of object representations. Recent evidence suggests that thematic information may be particularly important in determining relationships between manipulable artifacts. However, although sensorimotor information is on many accounts an important component of manipulable artifact representations, little is known about the role that action may play during the processing of semantic relationships (particularly thematic relationships) between multiple objects. In this study, we assessed healthy and left hemisphere stroke participants to explore three questions relevant to object relationship processing. First, we assessed whether participants tended to favor thematic relations including action (Th+A, e.g., wine bottle-corkscrew), thematic relationships without action (Th-A, e.g., wine bottle-cheese), or taxonomic relationships (Tax, e.g., wine bottle-water bottle) when choosing between them in an association judgment task with manipulable artifacts. Second, we assessed whether the underlying constructs of event relatedness, action relatedness, and categorical relatedness determined the choices that participants made. Third, we assessed the hypothesis that degraded action knowledge and/or damage to temporo-parietal cortex, a region of the brain associated with the representation of action knowledge, would reduce the influence of action on the choice task. Experiment 1 showed that explicit ratings of event, action, and categorical relatedness were differentially predictive of healthy participants' choices, with action relatedness determining choices between Th+A and Th-A associations above and beyond event and categorical ratings. Experiment 2 focused more specifically on these Th+A vs. Th-A choices and demonstrated that participants with left temporo-parietal lesions, a brain region known to be involved in sensorimotor processing, were less likely than controls and tended to be less likely than patients with lesions sparing that region to use action relatedness in determining their choices. These data indicate that action knowledge plays a critical role in processing of thematic relations for manipulable artifacts.

Citing Articles

Neural network bases of thematic semantic processing in language production.

Schwen Blackett D, Varkey J, Wilmskoetter J, Roth R, Andrews K, Busby N Cortex. 2022; 156:126-143.

PMID: 36244204 PMC: 10041939. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2022.08.007.


Looking to recognise: the pre-eminence of semantic over sensorimotor processing in human tool use.

Federico G, Brandimonte M Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):6157.

PMID: 32273576 PMC: 7145874. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-63045-0.


The neurocognitive basis of knowledge about object identity and events: dissociations reflect opposing effects of semantic coherence and control.

Jefferies E, Thompson H, Cornelissen P, Smallwood J Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2019; 375(1791):20190300.

PMID: 31840592 PMC: 6939353. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0300.


Sensory and semantic activations evoked by action attributes of manipulable objects: Evidence from ERPs.

Lee C, Huang H, Federmeier K, Buxbaum L Neuroimage. 2017; 167:331-341.

PMID: 29183777 PMC: 5898371. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.045.


Learning, remembering, and predicting how to use tools: Distributed neurocognitive mechanisms: Comment on Osiurak and Badets (2016).

Buxbaum L Psychol Rev. 2017; 124(3):346-360.

PMID: 28358565 PMC: 5375056. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000051.


References
1.
Mirman D, Graziano K . Individual differences in the strength of taxonomic versus thematic relations. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011; 141(4):601-9. PMC: 3315601. DOI: 10.1037/a0026451. View

2.
Warrington E, McCarthy R . Categories of knowledge. Further fractionations and an attempted integration. Brain. 1987; 110 ( Pt 5):1273-96. DOI: 10.1093/brain/110.5.1273. View

3.
Barsalou L . Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009; 364(1521):1281-9. PMC: 2666716. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0319. View

4.
Filliter J, McMullen P, Westwood D . Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object identification. Brain Cogn. 2005; 57(1):61-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.022. View

5.
Kalenine S, Buxbaum L, Coslett H . Critical brain regions for action recognition: lesion symptom mapping in left hemisphere stroke. Brain. 2010; 133(11):3269-80. PMC: 2965423. DOI: 10.1093/brain/awq210. View