↓ Skip to main content

The specificity of action knowledge in sensory and motor systems

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The specificity of action knowledge in sensory and motor systems
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00494
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine E. Watson, Eileen R. Cardillo, Bianca Bromberger, Anjan Chatterjee

Abstract

Neuroimaging studies have found that sensorimotor systems are engaged when participants observe actions or comprehend action language. However, most of these studies have asked the binary question of whether action concepts are embodied or not, rather than whether sensory and motor areas of the brain contain graded amounts of information during putative action simulations. To address this question, we used repetition suppression (RS) functional magnetic resonance imaging to determine if functionally-localized motor movement and visual motion regions-of-interest (ROI) and two anatomical ROIs (inferior frontal gyrus, IFG; left posterior middle temporal gyrus, pMTG) were sensitive to changes in the exemplar (e.g., two different people "kicking") or representational format (e.g., photograph or schematic drawing of someone "kicking") within pairs of action images. We also investigated whether concrete versus more symbolic depictions of actions (i.e., photographs or schematic drawings) yielded different patterns of activation throughout the brain. We found that during a conceptual task, sensory and motor systems represent actions at different levels of specificity. While the visual motion ROI did not exhibit RS to different exemplars of the same action or to the same action depicted by different formats, the motor movement ROI did. These effects are consistent with "person-specific" action simulations: if the motor system is recruited for action understanding, it does so by activating one's own motor program for an action. We also observed significant repetition enhancement within the IFG ROI to different exemplars or formats of the same action, a result that may indicate additional cognitive processing on these trials. Finally, we found that the recruitment of posterior brain regions by action concepts depends on the format of the input: left lateral occipital cortex and right supramarginal gyrus responded more strongly to symbolic depictions of actions than concrete ones.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 39 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 12%
Lecturer 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 30%
Neuroscience 7 16%
Sports and Recreations 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,441,193
of 24,486,486 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,589
of 32,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,994
of 231,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#153
of 357 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,486,486 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 357 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.