4.5 Article

Functional links between motor and language systems

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 793-797

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03900.x

关键词

cell assembly; cognition; electromyography; mirror neurons; reaction time; transcranial magneticstimulation

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U105579212] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U105579212] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MC_U105579212] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied to motor areas in the left language-dominant hemisphere while right-handed human subjects made lexical decisions on words related to actions. Response times to words referring to leg actions (e.g. kick) were compared with those to words referring to movements involving the arms and hands (e.g. pick). TMS of hand and leg areas influenced the processing of arm and leg words differentially, as documented by a significant interaction of the factors Stimulation site and Word category. Arm area TMS led to faster arm than leg word responses and the reverse effect, faster lexical decisions on leg than arm words, was present when TMS was applied to leg areas. TMS-related differences between word categories were not seen in control conditions, when TMS was applied to hand and leg areas in the right hemisphere and during sham stimulation. Our results show that the left hemispheric cortical systems for language and action are linked to each other in a category-specific manner and that activation in motor and premotor areas can influence the processing of specific kinds of words semantically related to arm or leg actions. By demonstrating specific functional links between action and language systems during lexical processing, these results call into question modular theories of language and motor functions and provide evidence that the two systems interact in the processing of meaningful information about language and action.

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