1 / 1

Value = 0.001%

Study Categories Stimuli Task 1. Mummery et al (1996) A, T Spoken words Category fluency 2. Mummery et al (1998) A, T Written words Semantic & syllable decisions 3. Moore & Price (1999) A, F, T, V Pictures Naming 4. Moore & Price (1999) A, F, T, V Written words Matching

urvi
Download Presentation

Value = 0.001%

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Study Categories Stimuli Task 1. Mummery et al (1996) A, T Spoken words Category fluency 2. Mummery et al (1998) A, T Written words Semantic & syllable decisions 3. Moore & Price (1999) A, F, T, V Pictures Naming 4. Moore & Price (1999) A, F, T, V Written words Matching and pictures 5. Gorno-Tempini (2000) Fa, A, T Pictures Naming 6. Phillips et al (submitted) F, T Written words Semantic & screen and pictures size decisions AIP 7b F5 STS Abbreviations: A=animals, F=fruit, Fa=famous faces, T=tools, V=vehicles. L 4 3 2 1 0 -1 W B B W B W P P Relating imaging and patient studies of tool processing J. Devlin1,2, C. Moore1, C. Mummery1, J. Phillips1, M. Gorno-Tempini1, M. Rushworth1,2, and C. Price1 1Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, Institute of Neurology 2Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, University of Oxford Results (cont.) Summary of results Background • First study to demonstrate LPMT activation for tools relative to living things at a corrected level of significance. May be due to: • Small effect sizes (<3% rCBF) and • Context-specific effects, i.e. category effects were only present in tasks required semantic processing • Results consistent with previous imaging studies showing Tools > Animals in ventral pre-motor cortex BUT also demonstrated that this effect was not present relative to fruit • No area was activated only by tools Several functional neuroimaging studies have reported a region in the left posterior middle temporal cortex that is more active when words and pictures represent tools than other categories of objects (see Fig. 1 and ref. 14 for a review). This area is not damaged, however, by fronto-parietal lesions typically associated with selective deficits for man-made items4. The lesion data is more consistent with the few imaging studies that have reported increased left pre-motor activation for tools2, 7, 9. Figure 3: Effect sizes for tools 1. L. post. Middle temproal gyrus 3. L. anterior supramarginal gyrus 4 3 2 1 0 -1 %rCBF change W B B W B W P P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Figure 1: Tools activate LPMT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2. L. ventral pre-motor area Contrasts 1. Syllable decisions12 2. Screen size decisions13 3. Semantic decisions13 4. Semantic decisions12 5. W-P matching10 6. Category fluency11 7. Naming pictures6 8. Naming pictures10 4 3 2 1 0 -1 Value = 0.001% %rCBF change Discussion W B B W B W P P • These findings correspond well with the neurophysiological literature showing that in monkeys neurons in the ventral pre-motor area F5 respond to visually presented graspable objects such as tools and fruit5, 8. • This region is part of a “visuo-action” network including pre-motor (F5), anterior intra-parietal (AIP/7b), and inferior bank of the superior temporal sulcus (STS) regions (see Fig. 4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Activation in the left posterior middle temporal cortex (LPMT) and left pre-motor area in normals in a picture naming task from (Martin et al. 1996) Key Phonological tasks W Words Perceptual tasks P Pictures Semantic decision tasks B Both words and Word retrieval tasks pictures Current Study • Tasks without a strong semantic component (e.g. screen size decisions and syllable decisions) did not show a consistent advantage for tools • More semantic tasks, on the other hand, such as semantic decisions and picture naming, revealed small ( <3% rCBF changes) but consistent effects for tools > living things • The current study investigated tool-associated brain activations in an attempt to reconcile the apparent discrepancies between the imaging and lesion literature. • Data from 50 subjects performing 6 experiments were acquired on a single PET scanner (see Table) • Single multi-factorial analysis with three factors: 1) Category (natural vs. man-made) 2) Task 3) Stimulus type • Man-made items divided in tools and non-tools. Figure 4: Macaque “visuo-action” network Q: Were these activations truly category-specific? Key A Animals Fr Fruit BP Body parts T Tools Fa Famous Faces V Vehicles FF False fonts Adopted from Jeannerod et al. (1995) Table • The three regions identified in the current study may be homologues of this visuo-action network. • The same regions often activated in human imaging studies of grasping or hand movements1,3 • These results provide a plausible explanation for patients with semantic impairments to man-made items who typically have large left fronto-parietal lesions:  Although the LPMT is spared, the lesion can affect the inferior parietal and ventral pre-motor regions and the connections between them. 1. L. posterior middle temporal area? Word-picture matching10 Picture naming10 Picture naming6 Relative effect sizes A Fr V T FF Fa A T BP A Fr V T MN SN  Tools (T), simple non-objects (SN) and body parts (BP) all activated the LPMT. Results • Tools relative to living things activated three regions in the left hemisphere (see Fig. 2): 1. Posterior middle temporal cortex (LPMT) 2. Ventral pre-motor cortex 3. Anterior supramarginal gyrus but only for tasks with a strong semantic component (see Fig. 3) References 1. Binkofski et al. (1998). Human anterior intraparietal areas subserves prehension: a combined lesion and fMRI activation study. Neurology, 50, 1253-1259. 2. Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478-484. 3. Ehrsson et al. (2000) Cortical activity in precision- versus power-grip tasks: An fMRI study. J. Neurophysiology, 83, 528-536. 4. Gainotti, G. (2000). What the locus of brain lesion tells us about the nature of the cognitive deficit underlying category-specific disorders: a review. Cortex, 36, 539-559. 5. Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2(12), 493-501. 6. Gorno-tempini, M. L., Cipolotti, L., & Price, C. J. (2000). Which level of object processing generates category specific differences in brain activation? Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B, 1253-1258. 7. Grabowski, T. J., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (1998). Premotor and prefrontal correlates of category-related lexical retrieval. NeuroImage, 7, 232-243. 8. Jeannerod, M., Arbib, M. A., Rizzolatti, G., & Sakata, H. (1995). Grasping objects: the cortical mechanisms of visuomotor transformation. Trends in Neuroscience, 18(7), 314-320. 9. Martin, A., Wiggs, C., Ungerleider, L., & Haxby, J. (1996). Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge. Nature, 379, 649-652. 10. Moore, C. J., & Price, C. J. (1999). A functional neuroimaging study of the variables that generate category specific object processing differences. Brain, 122, 943-962. 11. Mummery, C. J., Patterson, K., Hodges, J., & Wise, R. J. (1996). Generating 'tiger' as an animal name or a word beginning with T: Differences in brain activation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 263, 989-995. 12. Mummery, C. J., Patterson, K., Hodges, J. R., & Price, C. J. (1998). Functional neuroanatomy of the semantic system: Divisible by what? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(6), 766-777. 13. Phillips, J., Noppeney, U., Humphreys, G. W., & Price, C. J. (submitted). A positron emission tomography study of action and category. 14. Price, C. J. & Friston, K. J. (in press) What has neuroimaging contributed to category-specificity? In G. Humphreys & E. Forde (Eds.), Category specificity in mind and brain . Sussex, England: Psychology Press. 2. L. ventral pre-motor area? Word-picture matching10 Picture naming10 Key A Animals FF False fonts Fr Fruit T Tools V Vehicles Relative effect sizes A Fr V T FF A Fr V T Figure 2: Tools > Living thingsfor semantic tasks only  Fruit (Fr) and tools (T) both activate the ventral pre-motor region. 3. L. anterior supramarginal area? Word-picture matching10 Picture naming10 L R L R L R Key A Animals FF False fonts Fr Fruit T Tools V Vehicles Relative effect sizes L. posterior middle temporal cortex (-62, -58, 0) SPM{Z}=5.3 p<0.005 corrected L. ventral pre-motor (-42, 4, 18) SPM{Z}=3.6 p<0.001 uncorrected L. anterior supramarginal (-60, -24, 34) SPM{Z}=3.8 p<0.001 uncorrected A Fr V T FF A Fr V T  Tools (T) and false fonts (FF) activated the anterior supramarginal region.

More Related