4.7 Article

Action representation of sound: Audiomotor recognition network while listening to newly acquired actions

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 308-314

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4822-06.2007

关键词

Broca's area; mirror neuron system; auditory; fMRI; premotor; sensorimotor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The discovery of audiovisual mirror neurons in monkeys gave rise to the hypothesis that premotor areas are inherently involved not only when observing actions but also when listening to action-related sound. However, the whole-brain functional formation underlying such action-listening is not fully understood. In addition, previous studies in humans have focused mostly on relatively simple and over-experienced everyday actions, such as hand clapping or door knocking. Here we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to ask whether the human action-recognition system responds to sounds found in a more complex sequence of newly acquired actions. To address this, we chose a piece of music as a model set of acoustically presentable actions and trained non-musicians to play it by ear. We then monitored brain activity in subjects while they listened to the newly acquired piece. Although subjects listened to the music without performing any movements, activation was found bilaterally in the frontoparietal motor-related network (including Broca's area, the premotor region, the intraparietal sulcus, and the inferior parietal region), consistent with neural circuits that have been associated with action observations, and may constitute the human mirror neuron system. Presentation of the practiced notes in a different order activated the network to a much lesser degree, whereas listening to an equally familiar but motorically unknown music did not activate this network. These findings support the hypothesis of a hearing-doing system that is highly dependent on the individual's motor repertoire, gets established rapidly, and consists of Broca's area as its hub.

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

4.7
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