Schubotz, R.

von Cramon, D.

Wolfensteller, U.

MPG.PuRe

MAXPLANCKINSTITUTEUta Wolfensteller, Ricarda I. Schubotz & D. Yves von CramonMax Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germanywolfen@cbs.mpg.deIntroduction ResultsMethodsDiscussionMotor Imagery and Perceptual Prediction Share the Premotor Cortex:fMRI Evidence for a Habitual Pragmatic Body MapRecent findings suggest that the pre-motor cortex might be exploited not onlyfor anticipatory processes in action per-formance [1] and action observation [2, 3]but more generally for the prediction ofany biological and non-biological dyna-mics in our environment [4, 5, 6].The present study set out to test the mainhypotheses derived from the habitual prag-matic body map account [5]: namely thatthe premotor cortex "mirrors" spatial dy-namics in the arm field (dorsal), object dy-namics in the hand field (superior ventral)and rhythmic dynamics in the vocal field(inferior ventral).1Serial prediction tasks (Fig. 1)The serial prediction task [7] requiresparticipants to detect a sequential patternwithin a series of stimuli and to predict itsfurther course. Here we employed threeprediction conditions (spatial, object,rhythm). The sequential pattern of a giventrial referred to the instructed stimulusproperty only, whereas the to-be-ignoredstimulus properties were randomly varied.At the end of each trial, participants hadto indicate by button press whether the se-quential pattern had been violated or not.Motor imagery tasks (Fig. 1)Participants were instructed to repetitivelyimagine the arm, hand or mouth move-ments from a first-person perspective. Atthe end of each trial they indicated bybutton press whether or not they had suc-ceeded in concentrating on the to-be-ima-gined movement.Data acquisition3T scanner (Siemens TRIO, Erlangen,Germany), 22 axial slices (64 x 64 pixelmatrix, FOV 192 mm, 4 mm, spacing 0.8mm), EPI (TE = 30ms, flip angle 90°,repetition time 2000 ms)Data analysisSoftware package LIPSIA[8]: prepro-cessing: 1/160 Hz highpass filter, spatialsmoothing (FWHM = 5.65 mm); statistics:boxcar function (3800 ms), convolved withthe hemodynamic response function,including a delay of 6 s, General LinearModel (random effects), second-levelt-tests, regions of interest (ROI) analyses.% sc01.0Z > 2.58Serial Predictionhand > armL supPMvpos rhyobj§§4Areas that were relatively stronger activated for hand motorimagery as compared to arm motor imagery are shown onthe left. In the superior ventral premotor cortex, whichshowed such a movement effect, the signal change was testedfor property effects, i.e. differences between predictionconditions (right panel).5Movement times recorded outside the scanner differedconsistently between the three motor effectors duringmovement execution and motor imagery (mouth < hand< arm, t(15) > 2.59, p < .05). Moreover, execution andimagery times were highly correlated for all movements(Pearson's r = .77 - .88, p < .001).Mouth Hand Arm170019002100230025002700executedimaginedMovement times (ms)150029003100330035001. The functional data on abstract prediction confirm an attentional modulation of lateral premotor cortex in dorsal-ventral direction [4, 6].2. A corresponding dorsal-to-ventral distribution was con-firmed for premotor fields that were relatively more activated for several motor imagery conditions supportingthe notion of a restricted somatotopy in lateral premotorcortex.3. Direct correspondences were confirmed for mouth movement imagery and rhythm prediction in inferiorventral premotor cortex, and for arm movement imageryand spatial prediction in dorsal premotor cortex. Therebythe present results partly confirm the hypotheses derivedfrom the habitual pragmatic body map account [5]:To-be-predicted stimulus dynamics and motor effectorsare coupled in lateral premotor cortex according to a pragmatic default.4. Finally, the present data further underline the functionalrelevance of the premotor cortex for non-motor processesin general, and more specifically for (abstract) anticipatoryprocesses that are not devoted to understanding anotherperson's behavior.References[1]Ehrsson HH, Geyer S, Naito E (2003) J Neurophysiol 90(5):3304-3316.[2]Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Seitz RJ, Zilles K, Rizzolatti G, Freund HJ (2001) Eur J Neurosci 13(2):400-404.[3]Sakreida K, Schubotz RI, Wolfensteller U, von Cramon DY (2005) JNeurosci 25(6):1335-1342.[4]Schubotz RI, von Cramon DY (2001) Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 11(1):97-112.[5]Schubotz RI, von Cramon DY, Lohmann G (2003) Neuroimage 20(1):173-185.[6]Wolfensteller U, Schubotz RI, von Cramon DY (2004) J Neurosci 24(46):10431-10439.[7]Schubotz, R (1999) Neurosci Lett 265(1):1-4.[8]Lohmann G, Muller K, Bosch V, Mentzel H, Hessler S, Chen L, Zysset S,von Cramon DY (2001) Comput Med Imaging Graph 25(6):449-57.motorimageryconditionsMouthHandArmRhyObjPosFix725 575 500 600 750 475 625 600 650575500 600 625750 475 650 525700Fix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Response Fb12 s0Cue300300 1300 1300300 300 300 1300300??????2R PMdL PMdL supPMv01.0L infPMvR infPMvZ > 3.09handSerial Predictionposition > object, rhythmrhythm > position, object% scarm mouth01.001.001.001.0handarm mouthMotor Imageryobject > position, rhythmhandarm mouthhandarm mouthhandarm mouth% sc% sc% sc% sc*****Property effects in serial prediction, i.e. areas that were relatively stronger activated fora specific prediction condition are shown on the left. In premotor areas showing suchproperty effects, the signal change was tested for movement effects, i.e. differencesbetween motor imagery conditions (right panel).3hand > arm, mouthmouth > arm, handL PMdL infPMv% sc01.001.001.001.0Z > 2.58Serial PredictionMotor ImageryL PMdR infPMvarm > hand, mouthpos rhyobjpos rhyobjpos rhyobjpos rhyobj% sc% sc% sc****§§* §Movement effects in motor imagery, i.e. areas that were relatively stronger activated fora specific motor imagery condition are shown on the left. In premotor areas showingsuch movement effects, the signal change was tested for property effects, i.e. differencesbetween prediction conditions (right panel).Serial prediction (Fig. 2)Position  bilateral dorsal PMObjects  left superior ventral PMRhythm   inferior ventral PM bilaterallyMovement effects in ROIs showing property effects (Fig. 2)left dorsal PM (spatial prediction)     arm, hand motor imageryinferior ventral PM (rhythm prediction)        mouth motor imageryMotor imagery (Fig. 3)Arm     left dorsal PMHand      left dorsal PM (Fig. 3)    left superior ventral PM (Fig. 4)Mouth      bilateral inferior ventral PMProperty effects in ROIs showing movement effects (Fig. 3)left dorsal PM (arm, hand)  spatial predictioninferior ventral PM (mouth)    rhythm prediction6Serial prediction Motor imageryarmspatialobjectrhythmhandmouthserialpredictionconditions

Motor Imagery and Perceptual Prediction Share the Premotor Cortex: fMRI Evidence for a Habitual Pragmatic Body Map

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

MPG.PuRe

MPG.PuRe

MPG.PuRe

MPG.PuRe