How Tool-Use Shapes Body Metric Representation: Evidence From Motor Training With and Without Robotic Assistance.
body metric representation
coexistence between goal representation and bodily movements
passive movements
peripersonal space
robotic assistance
tool-use
Journal
Frontiers in human neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5161
Titre abrégé: Front Hum Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477954
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
21
06
2019
accepted:
12
08
2019
entrez:
2
10
2019
pubmed:
2
10
2019
medline:
2
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Previous evidence has shown that tool-use can reshape one's own body schema, extending peripersonal space and modulating the representation of related body parts. Here, we investigated the role of tool action in shaping the body metric representation, by contrasting two different views. According to a first view, the shaping would rely on the mere execution of tool action, while the second view suggests that the shaping induced by tool action on body representation would primarily depend on the representation of the action goals to be accomplished. To this aim, we contrasted a condition in which participants voluntarily accomplish the movement by representing the program and goal of a tool action (i.e., active tool-use training) with a condition in which the tool-use training was produced without any prior goal representation (i.e., passive tool-use training by means of robotic assistance). If the body metric representation primarily depends on the coexistence between goal representation and bodily movements, we would expect an increase of the perceived forearm length in the post- with respect to the pre-training phase after the active training phase only. Healthy participants were asked to estimate the midpoint of their right forearm before and after 20 min of tool-use training. In the active condition, subjects performed "enfold-and-push" movements using a rake to prolong their arm. In the passive condition, subjects were asked to be completely relaxed while the movements were performed with robotic assistance. Results showed a significant increase in the perceived arm length in the post- with respect to the pre-training phase only in the active task. Interestingly, only in the post-training phase, a significant difference was found between active and passive conditions, with a higher perceived arm length in the former than in the latter. From a theoretical perspective, these findings suggest that tool-use may shape body metric representation only when action programs are motorically represented and not merely produced. From a clinical perspective, these results support the use of robots for the rehabilitation of brain-damaged hemiplegic patients, provided that robot assistance during the exercises is present only "as-needed" and that patients' motor representation is actively involved.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31572147
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00299
pmc: PMC6751246
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
299Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Bruno, Carpinella, Rabuffetti, De Giuli, Sinigaglia, Garbarini and Ferrarin.
Références
Neuropsychologia. 2010 Feb;48(3):746-55
pubmed: 19835895
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Jun 05;6:154
pubmed: 22679422
Cognition. 2002 Mar;83(2):B25-34
pubmed: 11869727
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Jan;35(3):589-98
pubmed: 20621120
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Apr;70:402-13
pubmed: 25448852
Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 14;8(1):13847
pubmed: 30218103
J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 May;12(3):415-20
pubmed: 10931768
Neuroreport. 2000 Jun 5;11(8):1645-9
pubmed: 10852217
Cortex. 2007 Apr;43(3):397-410
pubmed: 17533763
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2004 Jun;4(2):148-69
pubmed: 15460922
Cortex. 2017 Nov;96:83-94
pubmed: 28985532
Front Comput Neurosci. 2015 Nov 06;9:118
pubmed: 26594163
Nature. 2018 Sep;561(7722):239-242
pubmed: 30209365
Neuropsychologia. 2010 Feb;48(3):782-95
pubmed: 19837101
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Feb;8(2):79-86
pubmed: 15588812
Neuropsychologia. 2012 Jul;50(9):2187-94
pubmed: 22683448
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Apr;99:138-159
pubmed: 30685486
Front Behav Neurosci. 2015 Feb 02;9:4
pubmed: 25698947
J Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Jul;28(7):1052-61
pubmed: 26967945
J Neurosci. 2017 Mar 1;37(9):2415-2424
pubmed: 28154151
Exp Brain Res. 2012 Apr;218(2):259-71
pubmed: 22349501
Cortex. 2018 Jul;104:207-219
pubmed: 28705456
J Neurosci. 1985 Jul;5(7):1688-703
pubmed: 4020415
Curr Biol. 2009 Jun 23;19(12):R478-9
pubmed: 19549491
Front Hum Neurosci. 2018 Jan 04;11:617
pubmed: 29354040
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2016 Feb-Mar;33(1-2):82-101
pubmed: 27315277
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012 May;20(3):351-60
pubmed: 22623407
J Rehabil Med. 2009 Nov;41(12):966-70
pubmed: 19841825
Front Psychol. 2018 Dec 04;9:2458
pubmed: 30564182
Neuropsychologia. 2001;39(6):580-5
pubmed: 11257283
Brain. 2003 Apr;126(Pt 4):866-72
pubmed: 12615644
PLoS One. 2011 Apr 04;6(4):e17923
pubmed: 21483734
J Neurophysiol. 2018 Jan 1;119(1):39-48
pubmed: 28954891
Front Psychol. 2015 May 18;6:639
pubmed: 26042069
Technol Health Care. 2006;14(3):123-42
pubmed: 16971753
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
Sci Rep. 2016 Jun 13;6:27737
pubmed: 27292285
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 30;10(12):e0146175
pubmed: 26717521
Neuropsychologia. 2005;43(2):238-48
pubmed: 15707908
Neurosci Lett. 2004 Nov 30;372(1-2):62-7
pubmed: 15531089
Hum Mov Sci. 2015 Jun;41:114-26
pubmed: 25797919
Psychol Sci. 2007 Jul;18(7):642-8
pubmed: 17614874
Neuropsychologia. 2010 Jan;48(1):334-40
pubmed: 19800899
Front Psychol. 2019 Jan 14;9:2726
pubmed: 30692952
Exp Brain Res. 2019 Feb;237(2):493-501
pubmed: 30460395
Nature. 1998 Feb 19;391(6669):756
pubmed: 9486643
J Neurophysiol. 1998 Feb;79(2):1117-23
pubmed: 9463469
Neuroreport. 1996 Oct 2;7(14):2325-30
pubmed: 8951846
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44306
pubmed: 23028516
Nat Neurosci. 2007 Apr;10(4):417-9
pubmed: 17369825
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;145:126-42
pubmed: 19592791
Neuropsychologia. 2010 Feb;48(3):803-11
pubmed: 19931547
Front Psychol. 2014 May 30;5:492
pubmed: 24910624
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2004 Apr;51(4):636-46
pubmed: 15072218