1 / 26

Claudia Repetto Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

The effects of rTMS on primary motor cortex: the link between action and language ( preliminary results). EMBODIED LANGUAGE New College Oxford 26-28 September 2011. Claudia Repetto Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy. RATIONAL. EMBODIED COGNITION.

yael
Download Presentation

Claudia Repetto Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The effects of rTMS on primary motor cortex: the link between action and language(preliminary results) EMBODIED LANGUAGE New College Oxford 26-28 September 2011 Claudia Repetto Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Milan, Italy

  2. RATIONAL EMBODIED COGNITION EMBODIED SEMANTICS

  3. Experimental data Verbs indicating actions performed with different body parts activate the portions of the premotor cortex involved in the real action

  4. Experimental data Verbs indicating actions performed with different body parts activate the portions of the premotor cortex involved in the real action (Hauk, Johnsrude, & Pulvermüller, 2004)

  5. Experimental data Verbs indicating actions performed with different body parts activate the portions of the premotor cortex involved in the real action (Hauk, Johnsrude, & Pulvermüller, 2004) (Tettamanti et al., 2005)

  6. Experimental data Several studies indicate that even the primary motor cortex (M1) is involved in language processing, but results are sometimes contrasting Tools: Tasks: VS

  7. Birra…Firra... Buffo…Biffo • Increase of MEP recorded from the listeners' tongue muscles when the presented words strongly involve, when pronounced, tongue movements birra firra buffo biffo (Fadiga et al., 2002)

  8. he played the piano he jumped the rope he loved his wife • The processing of verbs indicating actions performed with different body parts modulate the activity of the portions of the primary motor cortex (M1) involved in the real action (Buccino et al., 2005)

  9. + + But on the other hand….. • The comprehension of effector specific action word meanings did not elicit preferential activity corresponding to the somatotopic organisation of effectors in either primary or premotor cortex (Postle et al., 2008)

  10. GOALS OF THE EXPERIMENT

  11. METHOD 10 students, 5 males and 5 females (age: 21-46; mean: 28.7; st. dev.: 9.57 education:16-20; mean: 16.7; st. dev.:1.25) Low-frequency rTMS Verbs comprehension (semantic judgment)

  12. MATERIAL 24 ACTION VERBS + 24 ABSTRACT VERBS applaudire (to clap) abbottonare (to button) firmare (to sign) ……. apprezzare (to appreciate) immaginare (to imagine) scordare (to forget) …….

  13. MATERIAL 24 ACTION VERBS + 24 ABSTRACT VERBS 48 items x 3 blocks i.e. firmavo-firmavi-firmava; scordavo-scordavi-scordava

  14. 5 minutes ++ firmava ++ TASK 5 sec 2 sec

  15. task task PROCEDURE Practice session Off-line rTMS session over M1 45 min

  16. task task PROCEDURE Practice session Off-line rTMS session over M1 45 min

  17. task task PROCEDURE RIGHT HAND Practice session RIGHT M1 45 min

  18. task task PROCEDURE RIGHT HAND Practice session LEFT HAND RIGHT M1 LEFT M1 45 min

  19. NOtms right abstract M1 left concrete EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 2 (stimulation) x 2 (side) x 2 (verbs)

  20. RESULTS • main effect of stimulation [F(1,9)= 55.11;p<0.001] • main effect of verb [F(1,9)=38.708; p<0.001] • interaction stimulation x verb [F(1,9)=11.272; p=0.008]

  21. DISCUSSION Methodological issues: variable “stimulation” not counterbalanced ?

  22. Possible explanations… (to be completed…) • M1 is not involved  the lower RTs post stimulation are due to a learning effect Control group: 18 students, comparable for age and education NO effect of time [F(1,16)= 1.657; p= 0.216] NO interaction time x verb [F(1,16)= 0.01; p=0.975]

  23. M1 Possible explanations… (to be completed…) • M1 is involved in different ways depending on the type of verb (action/abstract) ++ - - - Abstract verbs ++ +++ Action verbs

  24. M1 Possible explanations… (to be completed…) • M1 is involved in different ways depending on the type of verb (action/abstract) x ++ - - - Abstract verbs  “jump a step” faster RTs x ++ +++ Action verbs  slower RTs (with respect to the gain between baseline and post-tms with abstract verbs) See Papeo et al. (2009)

  25. Future perspectives • sample completion (with sessions counterbalanced) to disambiguate between the hypothesis of involvment and non-involvment of M1 to investigate the different involvment during abstract vs action verbs processing To interpret the complete set of data and give a contribution to the study of embodied language

  26. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! claudia.repetto@unicatt.it

More Related