The effects of rTMS on primary motor cortex: the link between action and language ( preliminary...
-
Upload
jasmine-wade -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of The effects of rTMS on primary motor cortex: the link between action and language ( preliminary...
The effects of rTMS on primary motor
cortex: the link between
action and language(preliminary results)
Claudia RepettoDepartment of Psychology,
Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy
EMBODIED LANGUAGE New College Oxford
26-28 September 2011
RATIONAL
EMBODIED COGNITIONEMBODIED COGNITION
EMBODIED SEMANTICSEMBODIED SEMANTICS
Experimental dataVerbs indicating actions performed with different body parts activate the portions of the premotor cortex involved in the
real action
Experimental dataVerbs indicating actions performed with different body parts activate the portions of the premotor cortex involved in the
real action
(Hauk, Johnsrude, & Pulvermüller, 2004)
Experimental dataVerbs indicating actions performed with different body parts activate the portions of the premotor cortex involved in the
real action
(Hauk, Johnsrude, & Pulvermüller, 2004) (Tettamanti et al., 2005)
Experimental dataSeveral studies indicate that even the primary motor
cortex (M1) is involved in language processing, but results are sometimes contrasting
VS
Tools: Tasks:
Birra…Firra...
Buffo…Biffo
Birra…Firra...
Buffo…Biffo
birra
biffobuffo
firra
(Fadiga et al., 2002)
o Increase of MEP recorded from the listeners' tongue muscles when the presented words strongly involve, when pronounced, tongue movements
o The processing of verbs indicating actions performed with different body parts modulate the activity of the portions of the primary motor cortex (M1) involved in the real action
(Buccino et al., 2005)
he played the piano
he jumped the rope
he loved his wife
o The comprehension of effector specific action word meanings did not elicit preferential activity corresponding to the somatotopic organisation of effectors in either primary or premotor cortex
(Postle et al., 2008)
But on the other hand…..
+ +
GOALS OF THE EXPERIMENT
METHOD
10 students, 5 males and 5 females (age: 21-46; mean: 28.7; st. dev.: 9.57 education:16-20; mean: 16.7; st. dev.:1.25)
Low-frequency rTMS
Verbs comprehension (semantic judgment)
MATERIAL
24 ACTION VERBS + 24 ABSTRACT
VERBS
applaudire (to clap)abbottonare (to button)firmare (to sign)…….
apprezzare (to appreciate)immaginare (to imagine)scordare (to forget)…….
MATERIAL
24 ACTION VERBS + 24 ABSTRACT
VERBS
48 items x 3 blocksi.e. firmavo-firmavi-firmava;scordavo-scordavi-scordava
TASK
++ firmava2 sec 5 sec ++
5 minutes
PROCEDURE
Practice session
task
Off-line rTMS session over M1
task
45 min
PROCEDURE
Practice session
task
Off-line rTMS session over M1
task
45 min
PROCEDURE
Practice session
task
task
45 min
RIGHT M1
RIGHT HAND
PROCEDURE
Practice session
task
task
45 min
RIGHT M1
RIGHT HAND
LEFT HAND
LEFT M1
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
2(stimulation)
2(stimulation)
x
NOtms
M1
2(side)
2(side)
2(verbs)
2(verbs)
right
left
abstract
concrete
x
RESULTSo main effect of stimulation [F(1,9)= 55.11;p<0.001]
o main effect of verb [F(1,9)=38.708; p<0.001]
o interaction stimulation x verb [F(1,9)=11.272; p=0.008]
DISCUSSIONMethodological issues: variable “stimulation” not counterbalanced
?
Possible explanations… (to be completed…)
1. M1 is not involved the lower RTs post stimulation are due to a learning effect
1. M1 is not involved the lower RTs post stimulation are due to a learning effect
Control group: 18 students, comparable for age and education
NO effect of time [F(1,16)= 1.657; p= 0.216]
NO interaction time x verb [F(1,16)= 0.01; p=0.975]
Possible explanations… (to be completed…)
2. M1 is involved in different ways depending on the type of verb (action/abstract)
2. M1 is involved in different ways depending on the type of verb (action/abstract)
M1
Action verbs
Abstract verbs++ - -
-
++ +++
Possible explanations… (to be completed…)
2. M1 is involved in different ways depending on the type of verb (action/abstract)
2. M1 is involved in different ways depending on the type of verb (action/abstract)
M1
Action verbs slower RTs (with respect to the gain between baseline and post-tms with abstract verbs)
Abstract verbs “jump a step” faster RTs++ - -
-
++ +++
xx
See Papeo et al. (2009)
Future perspectives
o sample completion (with sessions counterbalanced)
to disambiguate between the hypothesis of involvment and non-involvment of M1
to investigate the different involvment during abstract vs action verbs processing
To interpret the complete set of data and give a contribution to the study of embodied language
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!