4.5 Article

Reading about the actions of others: Biological motion imagery and action congruency influence brain activity

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA
卷 48, 期 6, 页码 1607-1615

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.01.028

关键词

Biological motion; Intention; Reading; Story comprehension; Superior temporal sulcus

资金

  1. NIH [NS41328]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prior neuroimaging research has implicated regions within and near the posterior superior temporal sulcus (pSTS) in the visual processing of biological motion and of the intentions implied by specific movements. However, it is unknown whether this region is engaged during the processing of human motion at a conceptual level, such as during story comprehension. Here, we obtained functional magnetic resonance images from subjects reading brief stories that described a human character's background and then concluded with an action or decision made by the character. Half of the stories contained incidental descriptions of biological motion (such as the character's walking or grasping) while the remaining half did not. As a second factor, the final action of the story was either congruent or incongruent with the character's background and implied goals and intentions. Stories that contained biological motion strongly activated the pSTS bilaterally, along with ventral temporal areas, premotor cortex, left motor cortex, and the precuneus. Active regions of pSTS in individual subjects closely overlapped with regions identified with a separate biological motion localizer (point-light display) task. Reading incongruent versus congruent stories activated dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and bilateral anterior insula. These results support the hypothesis that reading can engage higher visual cortex in a content-specific manner, and suggest that the presence of biological motion should be controlled as a potential confound in fMRI studies using story comprehension tasks. (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据