Literature DB >> 20846771

Exploring visuomotor priming following biological and non-biological stimuli.

E Gowen1, C Bradshaw, A Galpin, A Lawrence, E Poliakoff.   

Abstract

Observation of human actions influences the observer's own motor system, termed visuomotor priming, and is believed to be caused by automatic activation of mirror neurons. Evidence suggests that priming effects are larger for biological (human) as opposed to non-biological (object) stimuli and enhanced when viewing stimuli in mirror compared to anatomical orientation. However, there is conflicting evidence concerning the extent of differences between biological and non-biological stimuli, which may be due to stimulus related confounds. Over three experiments, we compared how visuomotor priming for biological and non-biological stimuli was affected over views, over time and when attention to the moving stimulus was manipulated. The results indicated that the strength of priming for the two stimulus types was dependent on attentional location and load. This highlights that visuomotor priming is not an automatic process and provides a possible explanation for conflicting evidence regarding the differential effects of biological and non-biological stimuli.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20846771     DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2010.08.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain Cogn        ISSN: 0278-2626            Impact factor:   2.310


  9 in total

Review 1.  How does visuomotor priming differ for biological and non-biological stimuli? A review of the evidence.

Authors:  E Gowen; E Poliakoff
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-07

2.  Covert motor activity on NoGo trials in a task sharing paradigm: evidence from the lateralized readiness potential.

Authors:  Antje Holländer; Christina Jung; Wolfgang Prinz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-04-30       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Attentional demands of movement observation as tested by a dual task approach.

Authors:  Cinthia M Saucedo Marquez; Tanja Ceux; Nicole Wenderoth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Enhancing voluntary imitation through attention and motor imagery.

Authors:  Judith Bek; Ellen Poliakoff; Hannah Marshall; Sophie Trueman; Emma Gowen
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Directing visual attention during action observation modulates corticospinal excitability.

Authors:  David J Wright; Greg Wood; Zoe C Franklin; Ben Marshall; Martin Riach; Paul S Holmes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Automatic imitation in rhythmical actions: kinematic fidelity and the effects of compatibility, delay, and visual monitoring.

Authors:  Daniel L Eaves; Martine Turgeon; Stefan Vogt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The role of attention in human motor resonance.

Authors:  Guglielmo Puglisi; Antonella Leonetti; Ayelet Landau; Luca Fornia; Gabriella Cerri; Paola Borroni
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Action observation produces motor resonance in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Judith Bek; Emma Gowen; Stefan Vogt; Trevor Crawford; Ellen Poliakoff
Journal:  J Neuropsychol       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 2.864

9.  The Effects of Instruction Manipulation on Motor Performance Following Action Observation.

Authors:  Silvi Frenkel-Toledo; Moshe Einat; Zvi Kozol
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2020-03-06       Impact factor: 3.169

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.