Conceptual knowledge for understanding other’s actions is organized primarily around action goals

Semantic knowledge about objects entails both knowing how to grasp an object (grip-related knowledge) and what to do with an object (goal-related knowledge). Considerable evidence suggests a hierarchical organization in which specific hand-grips in action execution are most often selected to accomplish a remote action goal. The present study aimed to investigate whether a comparable hierarchical organization of semantic knowledge applies to the recognition of other’s object-directed actions as well. Correctness of either the Grip (hand grip applied to the object) or the Goal (end-location at which an object was directed) were manipulated independently in two experiments. In Experiment 1, subjects were required to attend selectively to either the correctness of the grip or the goal of the observed action. Subjects were faster when attending to the goal of the action and a strong interference of goal-violations was observed when subjects attended to the grip of the action. Importantly, observation of irrelevant goal- or grip-related violations interfered with making decisions about the correctness of the relevant dimension only when the relevant dimension was correct. In contrast, in Experiment 2, when subjects attended to an action-irrelevant stimulus dimension (i.e. orientation of the object), no interference of goal- or grip-related violations was found, ruling out the possibility that interference-effects result from perceptual differences between stimuli. These findings suggest that understanding the correctness of an action selectively recruits specialized, but interacting networks, processing the correctness of goal- and grip-specific information during action observation

Ipsilesional trajectory control is related to contralesional arm paralysis after left hemisphere damage

We have recently shown ipsilateral dynamic deficits in trajectory control are present in left hemisphere damaged (LHD) patients with paresis, as evidenced by impaired modulation of torque amplitude as response amplitude increases. The purpose of the current study is to determine if these ipsilateral deficits are more common with contralateral hemiparesis and greater damage to the motor system, as evidenced by structural imaging. Three groups of right-handed subjects (healthy controls, LHD stroke patients with and without upper extremity paresis) performed single-joint elbow movements of varying amplitudes with their left arm in the left hemispace. Only the paretic group demonstrated dynamic deficits characterized by decreased modulation of peak torque (reflected by peak acceleration changes) as response amplitude increased. These results could not be attributed to lesion volume or peak velocity as neither variable differed across the groups. However, the paretic group had damage to a larger number of areas within the motor system than the non-paretic group suggesting that such damage increases the probability of ipsilesional deficits in dynamic control for modulating torque amplitude after left hemisphere damage