controversies over the mechanisms underlying the crucial role of the left fronto-parietal areas in the representation of tools

Clicks: 127
ID: 204535
2013
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #1,082 of 1,131 articles by views in accounts of chemical research

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,131 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Anatomo-clinical and neuroimaging data show that the left fronto-parietal areas play an important role in representing tools. As manipulation is an important source of knowledge about tools, it has been assumed that motor activity explains the link between tool knowledge and the left fronto-parietal areas. However, controversies exist over the exact mechanisms underlying this relationship. According to a strong version of the ‘embodied cognition theory’, activation of a tool concept necessarily involves re-enactment of the corresponding kind of action. Impairment of the ability to use tools should, therefore, lead to impairment of tool knowledge. Both the ‘domains of knowledge hypothesis’ and the ‘sensory-motor model of conceptual knowledge’ refute the strong version of the ‘embodied cognition hypothesis’ but acknowledge that manipulation and other action schemata play an important role in our knowledge of tools. The basic difference between these two models is that the former is based on an innatist model and the latter holds that the brain’s organization of categories is experience dependent. Data supporting and arguing against each of these models are briefly reviewed. In particular, the following lines of research, which argue against the innate nature of the brain’s categorical organization, are discussed: (1) the observation that in patients with category-specific disorders the semantic impairment does not respect the boundaries between biological entities and artefact items; (2) data showing that experience-driven neuroplasticity in musicians is not confined to alterations of perceptual and motor maps but also leads to the establishment of higher-level semantic representations for musical instruments; (3) results of experiments using previously unfamiliar materials showing that the history of our sensory-motor experience with an object significantly affects its neural representation.
Reference Key
egainotti2013frontierscontroversies Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Guido eGainotti;Guido eGainotti
Journal accounts of chemical research
Year 2013
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00727
URL
http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00727/full
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.