Explore the vast range of titles available.

The finding of reasonably consistent spatial and temporal productions of actions across different body parts has been used to argue in favor of the existence of a high-order representation of motor programs. In these terms, a generalized motor program consists of an abstract memory structure apt to specify a class of non-specific instructions used to guide a broad range of movements (e.g., \"grasp,\" \"bite\"). Although a number of studies, using a variety of tasks, have assessed the issue of effector independence in terms of action execution, little is known regarding the issue of effector independence within an action observation context. Here corticospinal excitability (CSE) of the right hand's first dorsal interosseous (FDI) and abductor digiti minimi (ADM) muscles was assessed by means of single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (spTMS) during observation of a grasping action performed by the hand, the foot, the mouth, the elbow, or the knee. The results indicate that observing a grasping action performed with different body parts activates the effector typically adopted to execute that action, i.e., the hand. We contend that, as far as grasping is concerned, motor activations by action observation are evident in the muscles typically used to perform the observed action, even when the action is executed with another effector. Nevertheless, some exceptions call for a deeper analysis of motor coding.

Executing go/no-go or approach/avoidance responses toward a stimulus can change its evaluation. To explain these effects, some theoretical accounts propose that executing these responses inherently triggers affective reactions (i.e., action execution), while others posit that the evaluative influences originate from interpreting these responses as valenced actions (i.e., action interpretation). To test the role of action execution and action interpretation in these evaluative effects, we developed a novel training task that combined both go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions orthogonally. Participants either responded or did not respond (i.e., go/no-go) to control a shopping cart on screen, and as a result, either collected or did not collect (i.e., approach/avoidance) certain food items. When the task instructions referred to the go/no-go actions (Experiment 1, = 148), we observed an effect of these actions. Participants evaluated no-go items less positively than both go and untrained items. No effect of approach/avoidance actions was observed. Contrarily, when the task instructions referred to the approach/avoidance actions (Experiment 2, = 158), we observed an approach/avoidance effect. Participants evaluated approached items more positively and avoided items less positively than untrained items. No effect of go/no-go actions was observed. This suggests that action interpretation determined whether go/no-go or approach/avoidance actions influenced stimulus evaluation, when the same motor responses were made. Further examination of the role of action interpretation can inform theories of how actions influence stimulus evaluation, and facilitate the use of these interventions in applied settings.

•For complex actions the brain acts as a trade-off between cognitive and motor resources.•We aimed to identify the effects of increasing motor complexity in a cognitive task.•Motor complexity enhances visual and attentional but reduces cognitive processes.•A frontal activity associated with motor control increased along with motor complexity.•Results support the motor-priority trade-off theory about how the brain faces complexity. Complex actions require more cognitive and motor control than simple ones. Literature shows that to face complexity, the brain must make a compromise between available resources usually giving priority to motor control. However, literature has minimally explored the effect of the motor response complexity on brain processing associated with cognitive tasks. Consequently, it is unknown whether carrying out a cognitive task requiring motor responses of increasing complexity could reduce cognitive processing keeping stable motor control. Therefore, this study aims to investigate possible modulations exerted by increasing motor response complexity in a cognitive task on brain processing. To this aim, we analyzed the event-related potentials and behavioral responses during a cognitive task with increasing complexity of the required motor response (keypress, reaching and stepping). Results showed the increasing motor complexity enhances early visual and attentional processing (P1 and N1 components) but reduces the late post-perceptual cognitive control (P3 component). Additionally, we found a component following the P3 which was specific for stimuli requiring a response. This component, labeled N750, increased amplitude along with the response motor complexity. Behaviorally, response accuracy was not affected by complexity. Results indicated that in cognitive tasks stimulus processing is affected by the complexity of the motor response. Complex responses require a greater investment of early perceptual and attentional resources, but at late phases of processing, cognitive resources are less available in favor of motor resources. This confirms the idea of the motor-priority cognitive-motor trade-off of the brain.

Action Execution (AE) and Action Observation (AO) share an extended cortical network of activated areas. During coordinative action these processes also overlap in time, potentially giving rise to behavioral interference effects. The neurophysiological mechanisms subtending the interaction between concurrent AE and AO are substantially unknown. To assess the effect of AO on observer’s corticomotor drive, we run one electromyography (EMG) and three Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) studies. Participants were requested to maintain a steady hand opening or closing posture while observing the same or a different action (hand opening and closing in the main TMS study). By measuring Cortical Silent Periods (CSP), an index of GABAB-mediated corticospinal inhibitory strength, we show a selective reduction of inhibitory motor drive for mismatching AE-AO pairs. The last two TMS experiments, show that this mismatch is computed according to a muscle-level agonist-antagonist representation. Combined, our results suggest that corticospinal inhibition may be the central neurophysiological mechanism by which one’s own motor execution is adapted to the contextual visual cues provided by other’s actions. •Inhibitory circuits mediate neural integration of Action Execution and Observation.•Mismatch in action execution and observation modulate cortical silent periods.•Action execution-observation mismatch is computed at the muscle level.•Corticospinal inhibitory mechanisms may guide joint action coordination.

Observation of a goal-directed motor action can excite the respective mirror neurons, and this is the theoretical basis for action observation (AO) as a novel tool for functional recovery during stroke rehabilitation. To explore the therapeutic potential of AO for dysphagia, we conducted a task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study to identify the brain areas activated during observation and execution of swallowing in healthy participants. Twenty-nine healthy volunteers viewed the following stimuli during fMRI scanning: an action-video of swallowing (condition 1, defined as AO), a neutral image with a Chinese word for \"watching\" (condition 2), and a neutral image with a Chinese word for \"swallowing\" (condition 3). Action execution (AE) was defined as condition 3 minus condition 2. One-sample -tests were performed to define the brain regions activated during AO and AE. Many brain regions were activated during AO, including the middle temporal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, pre- and postcentral gyrus, supplementary motor area, hippocampus, brainstem, and pons. AE resulted in activation of motor areas as well as other brain areas, including the inferior parietal lobule, vermis, middle frontal gyrus, and middle temporal gyrus. Two brain areas, BA6 and BA21, were activated with both AO and AE. The left supplementary motor area (BA6) and left middle temporal gyrus (BA21), which contains mirror neurons, were activated in both AO and AE of swallowing. In this study, AO activated mirror neurons and the swallowing network in healthy participants, supporting its potential value in the treatment of dysphagia.

We used fMRI to assess the human brain areas activated for execution, observation and 1st person motor imagery of a visually guided tracing task with the index finger. Voxel-level conjunction analysis revealed several cortical areas activated in common across all three motor conditions, namely, the upper limb representation of the primary motor and somatosensory cortices, the dorsal and ventral premotor, the superior and inferior parietal cortices as well as the posterior part of the superior and middle temporal gyrus including the temporo-parietal junction (TPj) and the extrastriate body area (EBA). Functional connectivity analyses corroborated the notion that a common sensory-motor fronto-parieto-temporal cortical network is engaged for execution, observation, and imagination of the very same action. Taken together these findings are consistent with the more parsimonious account of motor cognition provided by the mental simulation theory rather than the recently revised mirror neuron view Action imagination and observation were each associated with several additional functional connections, which may serve the distinction between overt action and its covert counterparts, and the attribution of action to the correct agent. For example, the central position of the right middle and inferior frontal gyrus in functional connectivity during motor imagery may reflect the suppression of movements during mere imagination of action, and may contribute to the distinction between ‘imagined’ and ‘real’ action. Also, the central role of the right EBA in observation, assessed by functional connectivity analysis, may be related to the attribution of action to the ‘external agent’ as opposed to the ‘self’. •Action execution, observation and imagination share a largely overlapping sensory-motor system.•Brain imaging data are consistent with the more parsimonious mental simulation account of motor cognition.•EBA circuits may contribute to the distinction between ‘executed’ and ‘observed’ actions.•MFG circuits and the preSMA may contribute to the differentiation between ‘real’ and ‘imagined’ actions.•IFG-IPL circuits may contribute to the distinction between overt and covert actions.

Humans engage in Interpersonal Synchrony (IPS) as they synchronize their own actions with that of a social partner over time. When humans engage in imitation/IPS behaviors, multiple regions in the frontal, temporal, and parietal cortices are activated including the putative Mirror Neuron Systems (Iacoboni, 2005; Buxbaum et al., 2014). In the present study, we compared fNIRS-based cortical activation patterns across three conditions of action observation (\"Watch\" partner), action execution (\"Do\" on your own), and IPS (move \"Together\"). Fifteen typically developing adults completed a reach and cleanup task with the right arm while cortical activation was examined using a 24-channel, Hitachi fNIRS system. Each adult completed 8 trials across three conditions (Watch, Do, and Together). For each fNIRS channel, we obtained oxy hemoglobin (HbO ) and deoxy hemoglobin (HHb) profiles. Spatial registration methods were applied to localize the cortical regions underneath each channel and to define six regions of interest (ROIs), right and left supero-anterior (SA or pre/post-central gyri), infero-posterior (IP or angular/supramarginal gyri), and infero-anterior (IA or superior/middle temporal gyri) regions. In terms of task-related differences, the majority of the ROIs were more active during Do and Together compared to Watch. Only the right/ipsilateral fronto-parietal and inferior parietal cortices had greater activation during Together compared to Do. The similarities in cortical activation between action execution and IPS suggest that neural control of IPS is more similar to its execution than observational aspects. To be clear, the more complex the actions performed, the more difficult the IPS behaviors. Secondly, IPS behaviors required slightly more right-sided activation (vs. execution/observation) suggesting that IPS is a higher-order process involving more bilateral activation compared to its sub-components. These findings provide a neuroimaging framework to study imitation and IPS impairments in special populations such as infants at risk for and children with ASD.

A wealth of evidence describes the strong positive impact that reward has on motor control at the behavioural level. However, surprisingly little is known regarding the neural mechanisms which underpin these effects, beyond a reliance on the dopaminergic system. In recent work, we developed a task that enabled the dissociation of the selection and execution components of an upper limb reaching movement. Our results demonstrated that both selection and execution are concommitently enhanced by immediate reward availability. Here, we investigate what the neural underpinnings of each component may be. To this end, we aimed to alter the cortical excitability of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and supplementary motor area using continuous theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation (cTBS) in a within-participant design (N = 23). Both cortical areas are involved in determining an individual’s sensitivity to reward and physical effort, and we hypothesised that a change in excitability would result in the reward-driven effects on action selection and execution to be altered, respectively. To increase statistical power, participants were pre-selected based on their sensitivity to reward in the reaching task. While reward did lead to enhanced performance during the cTBS sessions and a control sham session, cTBS was ineffective in altering these effects. These results may provide evidence that other areas, such as the primary motor cortex or the premotor area, may drive the reward-based enhancements of motor performance.

Motor information conveyed by viewing the kinematics of an agent's action helps to predict how the action will unfold. Still, how observed movement kinematics is processed in the brain remains to be clarified. Here, we used magnetoencephalography (MEG) to determine at which frequency and where in the brain, the neural activity is coupled with the kinematics of executed and observed motor actions. Whole-scalp MEG signals were recorded from 11 right-handed healthy adults while they were executing (Self) or observing (Other) similar goal-directed hand actions performed by an actor placed in front of them. Actions consisted of pinching with the right hand green foam-made pieces mixed in a heap with pieces of other colors placed on a table, and put them in a plastic pot on the right side of the heap. Subjects' and actor's forefinger movements were monitored with an accelerometer. The coherence between movement acceleration and MEG signals was computed at the sensor level. Then, cortical sources coherent with movement acceleration were identified with Dynamic Imaging of Coherent Sources. Statistically significant sensor-level coherence peaked at the movement frequency (F0) and its first harmonic (F1) in both movement conditions. Apart from visual cortices, statistically significant local maxima of coherence were observed in the right posterior superior temporal gyrus (F0), bilateral superior parietal lobule (F0 or F1) and primary sensorimotor cortex (F0 or F1) in both movement conditions. These results suggest that observing others' actions engages the viewer's brain in a similar kinematic-related manner as during own action execution. These findings bring new insights into how human brain activity covaries with essential features of observed movements of others. •Mirroring of kinematic processing in executed and observed goal-directed actions.•Mirroring occured in the right posterior superior temporal gyrus.•Mirroring occured in bilateral superior parietal lobule.•Mirroring occured in bilateral primary sensorimotor cortex.•Mirroring of kinematic might help humans to understand how observed actions unfold.

Action observation and execution activate regions that are part of the motor and mirror neuron systems (MNS). Using functional magnetic resonance (fMRI), we defined the presence and extent of MNS activation during three different motor tasks with the dominant, right-upper limb in healthy individuals. The influence of the modality of task administration (execution, observation, observation and execution) was also investigated. fMRI scans during the execution (E) of a motor task, the observation (O) of a video showing the same task performed by another person and the simultaneous observation and execution (OE) of the task were obtained from three groups of healthy subjects (15 subjects per group) randomized to perform: a simple motor (SM) task, a complex motor (CM) task and a finalistic motor (FM) task. Manual dexterity was assessed using the 9-hole peg test and maximum finger tapping frequency. MNS activation was higher during FM than SM or CM tasks, independently from the modality of administration (E, O, or OE). Inferior frontal gyrus recruitment was more significant during SM than CM tasks in the E and O conditions. Compared to SM and FM, CM task resulted in increased recruitment of brain regions involved in complex motor task performance. Compared to O and E, OE resulted in the recruitment of additional, specific, brain areas in the cerebellum, temporal and parietal lobes. The modality of administration and the type of task modulated MNS recruitment during motor acts. This might have practical implications for the set-up of individualized motor rehabilitation strategies.