Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com/locate/ynimg
NeuroImage 36 (2007) T77 T86
Review
Department of Physical Therapy, Steinhardt School of Education, New York University, NY, USA
Department of Psychological and Brain Science, and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
Contents
Hand-Object Interactions . . . .
Dynamic control of action . . .
Beyond on-line control of grasp
Hemispheric Specialization? . .
Action goals . . . . . . . . . .
Goals for self and others . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
T77
T79
T82
T82
T82
T83
Corresponding author. Sage Center for the Study of Mind and the
Department of Psychology, Building 21, Room 3837, UC Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. Fax: +1 805 893 4303.
E-mail address: grafton@psych.ucsb.edu (S.T. Grafton).
Available online on ScienceDirect (www.sciencedirect.com).
1053-8119/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.026
Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potential role in skill learning . .
Potential targets for implantation
controllers . . . . . . . . . . . .
aIPS in social interaction . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
of neural
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
prosthetic
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
T84
T84
T84
T84
T85
T85
T85
T78
Table 1
Published Talairach coordinates of the peak voxel activation in or near the human aIPS as reported by independent investigators using a variety of tasks
Contrast
1. Grasping vs pointing
2. Grasping vs reaching
3. Grasping vs pointing
4. Grip force vs no grip force
5. Small grip force vs large
6. Manipulation complex vs simple object
7. Manipulation complex vs simple object
8. Haptic exploration vs squeezing
9. Modeling vs squeezing
10. Haptic exploration vs imagining
11. Modeling vs imagining
12. Cross-modal vs unimodal matching
13. Viewing tools vs other categories
14. Naming tools vs other categories
15. Orientation vs color discrimination
16. Orientation vs color discrimination
17. Imagine grasp vs orientation discrimination
18. Pantomimed grasp vs imagined grasp
19. Action observation vs name object
20. R-hand, L-object vs L-hand, R-object
21. L-hand, R-object vs R-hand, L-object
22. Repetition suppression for goal
Reference
Left hemisphere
Right hemisphere
45
38
40
40
35
48
33
40
43
52
43
36
48
40
44
40
44
48
42
32
30
37
36
39
30
37
36
34
40
40
44
32
32
38
47
39
40
39
39
45
44
42
40
40
40
40
40
40
38
42
47
47
39
51
45
50
54
47
39.7
5.4
34
39.3
4.8
37
43.2
5.3
40
50
50
48
52
48
40
36
32
40
40
52
44
34
40
44
40
32
40
52
48
40
44
44
40
40
40
45
39
45
45
35
30
39
39
30
44
52
39
39
39
50
32
37
55
41.1
6.0
39.7
6.6
44.8
5.8
Asterisks denote that coordinates have been converted from Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) (http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/Imaging/Common/
mnispace.shtml). The row numbers (122) correspond to the numbers in the color-coded legend in Fig. 1, in which these coordinates are superimposed on a high
resolution template of a canonical brain.
T79
Fig. 1. A meta-analysis of activations reported in the published literature for a variety of perceptual and motor tasks involving reach-to-grasp movements. Each
circle (and the respective color-coded number) represents the locus of the peak activation in the corresponding grasp study and task listed in Table 1. Triangles
correspond to grasp observation and related studies. The locations are superimposed on a high resolution template of the single_subj_T1 brain provided in the
SPM package. The sections are shown at: axial, z = 44; left sagittal, x = 40; right sagittal, x = 41; Talairach coordinates.
Fig. 2. Location of TMS stimulation to aIPS in Tunik et al. (2005) and Rice
et al. (2006).
T80
Fig. 3. Effect of TMS on on-line control of grasp as a function of aperture size (left) and hand orientation (right). Results adapted from Tunik et al. (2005).
T81
Fig. 4. Effect of TMS on grasp control during planning and execution of unperturbed (AC) and perturbed (DF) trial types. Results adapted from Rice et al.
(2006).
T82
2000). At this point, our data cannot speak to which if any of these
models put forth in the literature is instantiated in the cortex.
Beyond on-line control of grasp
Results from recent unit recordings in monkey area PFG, a region
just inferior to AIP on the lateral convexity of the inferior parietal
lobule, suggest that single neurons in this region are selective for not
just the current grasping action, but also the subsequent movements
to be performed, which could be considered as the overall goal
(Fogassi et al., 2005). These results raise the possibility that human
aIPS and adjacent cortex may likewise represent actions at a
hierarchically higher level, representing goals rather than grasps
(Fogassi et al., 2005). Functional neuroimaging data have shown
that aIPS has a role beyond grasping (Culham et al., 2006; Grefkes
and Fink, 2005). Binkofski et al. (1999a, 1999b) demonstrated that
the manipulation of complex meaningless objects versus simple
objects leads to activation in a network of regions including aIPS.
aIPS is active during tactile exploration of objects as well as
modeling an object (i.e. constructing objects) (Jancke et al., 2001). A
role of aIPS in cross-modal processing has also been identified by
Grefkes et al. (2002), who showed increased neural activity in aIPS
when subjects transferred information between visual and tactile
modalities. A region in the vicinity of aIPS shows activation during
viewing and naming of tools, when compared to other stimuli such
as animals, faces and houses (Chao and Martin, 2000). Finally, this
region, along with adjacent IPL, is recruited on an array of grasp
observation tasks (Grafton et al., 1996a), object orientation
discrimination tasks (Shikata et al., 2001, 2003) and grasp imagery
and pantomime tasks (Shikata et al., 2003) (see Table 1 and Fig. 1 for
Talairach coordinates for activation loci in the cited literature).
Hemispheric Specialization?
A number of studies have used TMS and neuroimaging to address the
issue of hemispheric specialization for perception and action in the
anterior portion of the intraparietal sulcus. A first reasonable question is
whether leftright aIPS specialization might be parceled according to
action representations in intrinsic (joint space) versus extrinsic (location
of the object in external space) coordinate frames. Some evidence
suggests that this may be the case. Using an action observation task,
Shmuelof and Zohary (2006) found that BOLD activity in left aIPS was
predominantly driven by observing right (contralateral) handobject
interactions, irrespective of visual field (left or right) in which the
interaction occurred. Conversely, they found that right aIPS was driven
by both the contralateral observed hand as well as the visual field in
which the handobject interaction occurred. Thus, that study reveals a left
aIPS specialization for representing the contralateral acting hand. The
right aIPS likewise represented the contralateral hand, though this
representation was also sensitive to the visual field in which the
interaction occurred. Rushworth et al. (2001) have posited that the
anterior portion of IPS in the left hemisphere may be specialized for what
they called motor attention, a term that bears similarity with the data of
Schmeulof and Zohary (2006) as well as our depiction of aIPS function.
While the above results suggest a degree of left aIPS
specialization, the issue remains unresolved. For example, several
neuroimaging studies have systematically shown left hemisphere
aIPS activation using action understanding paradigms (Hamilton
and Grafton, 2006; Hamilton et al., 2006; Iacoboni et al., 2005).
When reviewing motor paradigms, the matter of functional
lateralization in aIPS remains murky. Most studies show bilateral
T83
Fig. 5. Repetition suppression for goal in human aIPS. (A) The stimulus sequence used to induce suppression in a one-back design. Each image indicates a movie
of a hand reaching out and taking an object. (B) Clusters in parietal cortex which showed specific suppression when the goal of the action was repeated. The
larger cluster in aIPS survived the p < 0.05 corrected threshold. (C) The post-stimulus response in the aIPS cluster for each condition. Stronger responses are seen
to novel goals (red and orange) compared to repeated goals (blue and green), regardless of hand trajectory.
goals? The two regions are densely interconnected, but may not
have identical functions. Two studies imply a role for IFG rather
than aIPS in goal representation. Single neurons within the IFG
respond when a monkey can infer that a human is grasping an
object behind a screen (Umilta et al., 2001). However, this
experiment did not distinguish between goals and kinematic
parameters, and thus the neurons could be responding to the
inferred grasp characteristics, rather than the goal of the action.
Meanwhile, evidence linking human IFG to intentions is derived
from an fMRI study where actions performed in a context resulted
in greater IFG activity than isolated actions (Iacoboni et al., 2005).
However, isolated actions do not lack an intention, so it is not clear
what this subtraction reveals. Furthermore, it is hard in this case to
exclude the possibility that canonical neurons which respond to
objects alone are the driving force behind the context effects.
Finally, it is not clear why the authors find stronger activation for
drinking actions compared to cleaning actions, when both are
likely to be equally common in daily life. To summarize, we do not
contest the findings that IFG is intimately connected with aIPS and
tends to be coactivated with the parietal cortex in a range of action
observation studies (i.e. Aziz-Zadeh et al., 2006). However, we
suggest that there is strong evidence for aIPS as a center for
intermediate, or object centered goals, and that IFG may have an
alternative function that is beyond the scope of this review.
Second, the presence of a representation of observed goals in
aIPS raises the question of how these goals might be computed
from the visual array. One possibility is that goals are inferred by
direct matching or resonance where visual information is
T84
T85
Culham, J.C., Danckert, S.L., DeSouza, J.F., Gati, J.S., Menon, R.S.,
Goodale, M.A., 2003. Visually guided grasping produces fMRI
activation in dorsal but not ventral stream brain areas. Exp. Brain Res.
153, 180189.
Culham, J.C., Cavina-Pratesi, C.C., Singhal, A., 2006. The role of parietal
cortex in visuomotor control: what have we learned from neuroimaging?
Neuropsychologia 44, 26682684.
Della-Maggiore, V., Malfait, N., Ostry, D.J., Paus, T., 2004. Stimulation of
the posterior parietal cortex interferes with arm trajectory adjustments
during the learning of new dynamics. J. Neurosci. 24, 99719976.
Desmurget, M., Grafton, S., 2000. Forward modeling allows feedback
control for fast reaching movements. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 423431.
Desmurget, M., Epstein, C.M., Turner, R.S., Prablanc, C., Alexander, G.E.,
Grafton, S.T., 1999. Role of the posterior parietal cortex in updating
reaching movements to a visual target. Nat. Neurosci. 2, 563567.
Ehrsson, H.H., Fagergren, E., Forssberg, H., 2001. Differential frontoparietal activation depending on force used in a precision grip task: an
fMRI study. J. Neurophysiol. 85, 26132623.
Fogassi, L., Ferrari, P.F., Gesierich, B., Rozzi, S., Chersi, F., Rizzolatti, G.,
2005. Parietal lobe: from action organization to intention understanding.
Science 308, 662667.
Frey, S.H., Vinton, D., Norlund, R., Grafton, S.T., 2005. Cortical topography
of human anterior intraparietal cortex active during visually-guided
grasping. Cogn. Brain Res. 23, 397405.
Frith, C.D., Frith, U., 2006. How we predict what other people are going to
do. Brain Res. 1079, 3646.
Gallese, V., Murata, A., Kaseda, M., Niki, N., Sakata, H., 1994. Deficit of
hand preshaping after muscimol injection in monkey parietal cortex.
NeuroReport 5, 15251529.
Gallese, V., Keysers, C., Rizzolatti, G., 2004. A unifying view of the basis of
social cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 396403.
Gardner, E.P., Babu, K.S., Reitzen, S.D., Ghosh, S., Brown, A.M., Chen, J.,
Hall, A.L., Herzlinger, M., Kohlenstein, J.B., Ro, J.Y., 2006.
Neurophysiology of prehension: I. Posterior parietal cortex and objectoriented hand behaviors. J. Neurophysiol., doi:10.1152/jn.00558.2006
Glover, S., Miall, R.C., Rushworth, M.F., 2005. Parietal rTMS disrupts the
initiation but not the execution of on-line adjustments to a perturbation
of object size. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 124136.
Grafton, S.T., Arbib, M.A., Fadiga, L., Rizzolatti, G., 1996a. Localization of
grasp representations in humans by positron emission tomography. 2.
Observation compared with imagination. Exp. Brain Res. 112, 103111.
Grafton, S.T., Fagg, A.H., Woods, R.P., Arbib, M.A., 1996b. Functional
anatomy of pointing and grasping in humans. Cereb. Cortex 6, 226237.
Grea, H., Pisella, L., Rossetti, Y., Desmurget, M., Tilikete, C., Grafton, S.,
Prablanc, C., Vighetto, A., 2002. A lesion of the posterior parietal cortex
disrupts on-line adjustments during aiming movements. Neuropsychologia
40, 24712480.
Grefkes, C., Fink, G.R., 2005. The functional organization of the
intraparietal sulcus in humans and monkeys. J. Anat. 207, 317.
Grefkes, C., Weiss, P.H., Zilles, K., Fink, G.R., 2002. Crossmodal
processing of object features in human anterior intraparietal cortex: an
fMRI study implies equivalencies between humans and monkeys.
Neuron 35, 173184.
Grill-Spector, K., Malach, R., 2001. fMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the
functional properties of human cortical neurons. Acta Psychol. (Amst.)
107, 293321.
Hamilton, A.F., Grafton, S.T., 2006. Goal representation in human anterior
intraparietal sulcus. J. Neurosci. 26, 11331137.
Hamilton, A., Wolpert, D., Frith, U., 2004. Your own action influences how
you perceive another person's action. Curr. Biol. 14, 493498.
Hamilton, A.F., Wolpert, D.M., Frith, U., Grafton, S.T., 2006. Where does
your own action influence your perception of another person's action in
the brain? NeuroImage 29, 524535.
Handy, T.C., Schaich-Borg, J., Turk, D.J., Tipper, C.M., Grafton, S.T.,
Gazzaniga, M.S., 2006. Motor experience with graspable objects
reduces their implicit analysis in visual and motor-related cortex.
Brain Res. 1097, 156166.
T86
Iacoboni, M., Woods, R.P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J.C.,
Rizzolatti, G., 1999. Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science
286, 25262528.
Iacoboni, M., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V., Buccino, G., Mazziotta, J.C.,
Rizzolatti, G., 2005. Grasping the intentions of others with one's own
mirror neuron system. PLoS Biol. 3, e79.
Jacob, P., Jeannerod, M., 2005. The motor theory of social cognition: a
critique. Trends Cogn. Sci. 9, 2125.
Jancke, L., Kleinschmidt, A., Mirzazade, S., Shah, N.J., Freund, H.J., 2001.
The role of the inferior parietal cortex in linking the tactile perception
and manual construction of object shapes. Cereb. Cortex 11, 114121.
Mountcastle, V.B., Lynch, J.C., Georgopoulos, A., Sakata, H., Acuna, C.,
1975. Posterior parietal association cortex of the monkey: command
functions for operations within extrapersonal space. J. Neurophysiol. 38,
871908.
Murata, A., Gallese, V., Luppino, G., Kaseda, M., Sakata, H., 2000.
Selectivity for the shape, size, and orientation of objects for grasping
in neurons of monkey parietal area AIP. J. Neurophysiol. 83,
25802601.
Orban, G.A., Claeys, K., Nelissen, K., Smans, R., Sunaert, S., Todd, J.T.,
Wardak, C., Durand, J.B., Vanduffel, W., 2005. Mapping the parietal
cortex of human and non-human primates. Neuropsychologia 44,
26472667.
Pisella, L., Grea, H., Tilikete, C., Vighetto, A., Desmurget, M., Rode, G.,
Boisson, D., Rossetti, Y., 2000. An automatic pilot for the hand in
human posterior parietal cortex: toward reinterpreting optic ataxia. Nat.
Neurosci. 3, 729736.
Reina, G.A., Moran, D.W., Schwartz, A.B., 2001. On the relationship
between joint angular velocity and motor cortical discharge during
reaching. J. Neurophysiol. 85, 25762589.
Rice, N.J., Tunik, E., Grafton, S.T., 2006. The anterior intraparietal sulcus
mediates grasp execution, independent of requirement to update: new
insights from TMS. J. Neurosci. 26, 81768182.
Rizzolatti, G., Craighero, L., 2004. The mirror-neuron system. Annu. Rev.
Neurosci. 27, 169192.
Rizzolatti, G., Matelli, M., 2003. Two different streams form the dorsal
visual system: anatomy and functions. Exp. Brain Res. 153, 146157.
Rushworth, M.F., Krams, M., Passingham, R.E., 2001. The attentional
role of the left parietal cortex: the distinct lateralization and
localization of motor attention in the human brain. J. Cogn. Neurosci.
13, 698710.
Sakata, H., Taira, M., Mine, S., Murata, A., 1992. Hand-movement related
neurons of the posterior parietal cortex of the monkey: their role in visual
guidance of hand movements. In: Camaniti, R., Johnson, P.B., Burnod,
Y. (Eds.), Control of Arm Movement in Space: Neurophysiological and
Computational Approaches. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 185198.
Sakata, H., Taira, M., Murata, A., Mine, S., 1995. Neural mechanisms of
visual guidance of hand action in the parietal cortex of the monkey.
Cereb. Cortex 5, 429438.
Sakata, H., Tsutsui, K., Taira, M., 2005. Toward an understanding of the