We examined the effects of keeping hand actions in working memory on the speed of naming handled objects. The features of the hand action and objects’ handle matched or mismatched on two dimensions: alignment (left vs. right), orientation (horizontal vs. vertical). For objects presented in their canonical upright position, the speed of naming was only slower when the actions were partially incongruent with the target object. For rotated objects, the effect was reversed. The pattern of results suggests that the identification system is more sensitive to the functional goal (i.e. the end state) of the rotated object in evoking action representations than the actions evoked by the depicted view (i.e. the beginning state). The findings, overall, strongly support the notion that action representations play a functional role in object identification. / Graduate / 0633 / 0623 / tlin23@gmail.com

We examined the effects of keeping hand actions in working memory on the speed of naming handled objects. The features of the hand action and objects’ handle matched or mismatched on two dimensions: alignment (left vs. right), orientation (horizontal vs. vertical). For objects presented in their canonical upright position, the speed of naming was only slower when the actions were partially incongruent with the target object. For rotated objects, the effect was reversed. The pattern of results suggests that the identification system is more sensitive to the functional goal (i.e. the end state) of the rotated object in evoking action representations than the actions evoked by the depicted view (i.e. the beginning state). The findings, overall, strongly support the notion that action representations play a functional role in object identification. / Graduate / 0633 / 0623 / tlin23@gmail.com

We confirm that under certain conditions, constituents of motor actions afforded by handled objects play a role in their identification. Subjects held in working memory action plans specifying both the laterality of the hand to be used (left or right) and a wrist orientation (vertical or horizontal). Speeded object identification was impaired when a pictured object matched the action on only one of these two categorical dimensions (e.g., a frying pan with its handle facing left, an action plan involving the right hand and horizontal wrist orientation), relative to when the object matched the action on both dimensions or neither dimension. This phenomenon only occurred for a semantic task (i.e., naming) and significantly weakened when the handled object was named following the naming of a non-handled object. These results imply that, when maintaining the features of planned actions in working memory, identification of the object leads to conflict between components of the action plan and features of the grasp action afforded by the depicted object. When bound to a matching feature, the discrepant features cannot be easily disregarded, and conflict with the features of the target object resulted in delayed identification. Naming a non-handled object first weakens the pragmatic processing generated by attending to the features of the action plans, resulting in less conflict when only one feature matched between the action plan and action afforded by the handled object. / Graduate

The integration of perception and action has long been studied in psychological science using overarching cognitive frameworks. Despite these being very successful in explaining perception-action integration, little is known about its neurophysiological and especially the functional neuroanatomical foundations. It is unknown whether distinct brain structures are simultaneously involved in the processing of perception-action integration codes and also to what extent demands on perception-action integration modulate activities in these structures. We investigate these questions in an EEG study integrating temporal and ICA-based EEG signal decomposition with source localization. For this purpose, we used data from 32 healthy participants who performed a ‘TEC Go/Nogo’ task. We show that the EEG signal can be decomposed into components carrying different informational aspects or processing codes relevant for perception-action integration. Importantly, these specific codes are processed independently in different brain structures, and their specific roles during the processing of perception-action integration differ. Some regions (i.e., the anterior cingulate and insular cortex) take a ‘default role’ because these are not modulated in their activity by demands or the complexity of event file coding processes. In contrast, regions in the motor cortex, middle frontal, temporal, and superior parietal cortices were not activated by ‘default’ but revealed modulations depending on the complexity of perception-action integration (i.e., whether an event file has to be reconfigured). Perception-action integration thus reflects a multi-region processing of specific fractions of information in the neurophysiological signal. This needs to be taken into account when further developing a cognitive science framework detailing perception-action integration.

Actions can fail - even though this is well known, little is known about what distinguishes neurophysiological processes preceding errors and correct actions. In this study, relying on the Theory of Event Coding, we test the assumption that only specific aspects of information coded in EEG activity are relevant for understanding processes leading to response errors. We examined N = 69 healthy participants who performed a mental rotation task and combined temporal EEG signal decomposition with multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) and source localization analyses. We show that fractions of the EEG signal, primarily representing stimulus-response translation (event file) processes and motor response representations, are essential. Stimulus representations were less critical. The source localization results revealed widespread activity modulations in structures including the frontopolar, the middle and superior frontal, the anterior cingulate cortex, the cuneus, the inferior parietal cortex, and the ventral stream regions. These are associated with differential effects of the neural dynamics preceding correct/erroneous responses. The temporal-generalization MVPA showed that event file representations and representations of the motor response were already distinct 200 ms after stimulus presentation and this lasted till around 700 ms. The stability of this representational content was predictive for the magnitude of posterror slowing, which was particularly strong when there was no clear distinction between the neural activity profile of event file representations associated with a correct or an erroneous response. The study provides a detailed analysis of the dynamics leading to an error/correct response in connection to an overarching framework on action control.