4.6 Article

Corticospinal Facilitation during Observation of Graspable Objects: A Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049025

关键词

-

资金

  1. E.C. project POETICON
  2. E.C. project POETICON++
  3. project Regione Emilia Romagna Universita

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 1979, Gibson first advanced the idea that the sight of graspable objects automatically activates in the observer the repertoire of actions necessary to interact with them, even in the absence of any intention to act (affordance effect''). The neurophysiological substrate of this effect was later identified in a class of bimodal neurons, the so-called canonical neurons, located within monkey premotor cortex. In humans, even if different behavioral studies supported the existence of affordance effect, neurophysiological investigations exploring its neural substrates showed contradictory results. Here, by means of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), we explored the time-course of the affordance effect'' elicited by the observation of everyday-life graspable objects on motor cortex of resting observers. We recorded motor evoked potentials (MEP) from three intrinsic hand muscles (two synergic for grasping, OP and FDI and one neutral, ADM). We found that objects' vision determined an increased excitability at 120 milliseconds after their presentation. Moreover, this modulation was proved to be specific to the cortical representations of synergic muscles. From an evolutionary perspective, this timing perfectly fits with a fast recruitment of the motor system aimed at rapidly and accurately choosing the appropriate motor plans in a competitive environment filled with different opportunities. Citation: Franca M, Turella L, Canto R, Brunelli N, Allione L, et al. (2012) Corticospinal Facilitation during Observation of Graspable Objects: A Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study. PLoS ONE 7(11): e49025. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049025

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

4.6
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