Several works have provided evidence of a resonant motor effect while observing a hand interacting with painful stimuli. The aim of this work is to show that participants are sensitive to the observation of an injured hand when they have to categorise an easily graspable object with their own hand. In Experiment 1, participants indicated whether or not photographs of objects (graspable or non-graspable, left or right oriented) could be grasped with their dominant hand, by tapping a key on a keyboard. Target objects were preceded by primes consisting of photographs of hands (injured vs healthy) in a grasping posture (power grasp). Experiment 2 consisted of two phases: In the first phase, participants had to categorise square or circle shapes. After their response (Group 1: tapping a key vs Group 2: constricting a hand grip), photograph of two types of hand (injured vs healthy) was displayed on the computer screen. In the second phase, participants had to indicate whether objects could be easily grasped with their dominant hand. Target objects were preceded by primes (square and circle) as shown in the first phase. Results show that response times were slower when the graspable target objects were right oriented and preceded by the photograph or a geometric shape associated with an injured hand. This response delay was accentuated in the handgrip condition. These results highlight that the view of an injured hand activates motor programme and pain mechanisms associated with participants relative to the consequences of the simulated grasping action.
AmbrosiniE.ScorolliC.BorghiA. M.CostantiniM. (2012). Which body for embodied cognition? Affordance and language within actual and perceived reaching space. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1551–1557.
2.
AnelliF.BorghiA. M.NicolettiR. (2012). Grasping the pain: Motor resonance with dangerous affordances. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1627–1639.
3.
AnelliF.NicolettiR.BolzaniR.BorghiA. M. (2013). Keep away from danger: Dangerous objects in dynamic and static situations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 344.
4.
AnelliF.RanziniM.NicolettiR.BorghiA. M. (2013). Perceiving object dangerousness: An escape from pain?Experimental Brain Research, 228, 457–466.
5.
AvenantiA.BologniniN.MaravitaA.AgliotiS. M. (2007). Somatic and motor components of action simulation. Current Biology, 17, 2129–2135.
6.
AvenantiA.BuetiD.GalatiG.AgliotiS. M. (2005). Transcranial magnetic stimulation highlights the sensorimotor side of empathy for pain. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 955–960.
7.
AvenantiA.CandidiM.UrgesiC. (2013). Vicarious motor activation during action perception: Beyond correlational evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 185.
8.
AvenantiA.Minio-PaluelloI.SforzaA.AgliotiS. M. (2009). Freezing or escaping? Opposite modulations of empathic reactivity to the pain of others. Cortex, 45, 1072–1077.
9.
AvenantiA.PaluelloI. M.BufalariI.AgliotiS. M. (2006). Stimulus-driven modulation of motor-evoked potentials during observation of others’ pain. NeuroImage, 32, 316–324.
10.
BadetsA.OsiurakF. (2015). A goal-based mechanism for delayed motor intention: Considerations from motor skills, tool use and action memory. Psychological Research, 79, 345–360.
11.
BadetsA.RensonnetC. (2015). Une approche idéomotrice de la cognition [An Ideomotor Approach of Cognition]. L’année Psychologique, 115, 591–635.
12.
BarsalouL. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724.
13.
BonfiglioliC.FinocchiaroC.GesierichB.RositaniF.VescoviM. (2009). A kinematic approach to the conceptual representations of this and that. Cognition, 111, 270–274.
14.
BorghiA. M. (2004). Object concepts and action: Extracting affordances from objects parts. Acta Psychologica, 115, 69–96.
15.
BorghiA. M. (2005). Object concepts and action. In PecherD.ZwaanR.A. (Eds), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 8–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
BorghiA. M.BonfiglioliC.LugliL.RicciardelliP.RubichiS.NicolettiR. (2007). Are visual stimuli sufficient to evoke motor information? Studies with hand primes. Neuroscience Letters, 41(1), 17–21.
17.
BorghiA. M.CimattiF. (2010). Embodied cognition and beyond: Acting and sensing the body. Neuropsychologia, 48, 763–773.
18.
BorghiA. M.RiggioL. (2009). Sentence comprehension and simulation of object temporary, canonical and stable affordances. Brain Research, 1253, 117–128.
19.
BrouilletD.MilhauA.BrouilletT. (2015). When “good” is not always right: Effect of the consequences of motor action on valence-space associations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: Article 237. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00237
20.
BrouilletD.VagnotC.MilhauA.BrunelL.BrigliaJ.VersaceR.RoussetS. (2015). Sensory–motor properties of past actions bias memory in a recognition task. Psychological Research, 79, 678–686.
21.
BrouilletT.HeurleyL.MartinS.BrouilletD. (2010). The embodied cognition theory and the motor component of “yes” and “no” verbal responses. Acta Psychologica, 134, 310–317.
22.
BrunelL.LabeyeE.LesourdM.VersaceR. (2009). The sensory nature of episodic memory: Sensory priming effects due to memory trace activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1081–1088.
23.
BubD. N.MassonM. E. (2010). Grasping beer mugs: On the dynamics of alignment effects induced by handled objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 341–358.
24.
CamusT.BrouilletD.BrunelL. (2016). Assessing the functional role of motor response during the integration process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 1693–1702.
25.
CasasantoD. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left–handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 351–367.
26.
CisekP. (2007). Cortical mechanisms of action selection: The affordance competition hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 1585–1599.
27.
DecetyJ.GrezesJ.CostesN.PeraniD.JeannerodM.ProcykE.… FazioF. (1997). Brain activity during observation of actions. Brain, 120, 1763–1777.
28.
DecetyJ.PeraniD.JeannerodM.BettinardiV.TadaryB.WoodsR.… FazioF. (1994). Mapping motor representations with positron emission tomography. Nature, 371, 600–602.
29.
EllisR.TuckerM. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451–471.
30.
ElsnerB.HommelB. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 229–240.
31.
FischerM. H.ZwaanR. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 825–850.
32.
FlanaganJ. R.BowmanM. C.JohanssonR. S. (2006). Control strategies in object manipulation tasks. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 650–659.
33.
GlenbergA. M.GalleseV. (2012). Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48, 905–922.
34.
GreenwaldA. G. (1970a). A choice reaction time test of ideomotor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86(1), 20–25.
35.
GreenwaldA. G. (1970b). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.
36.
HommelB. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. Advances in Psychology, 118, 281–320.
37.
HommelB. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.
38.
HommelB. (2001). Perception and action. In KintschW. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences: Cognitive psychology and cognitive science (pp. 11195–11198). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
39.
HommelB. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.
40.
HommelB. (2015). The theory of event coding (TEC) as embodied-cognition framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: Article 1318.
41.
HommelB.ElsnerB. (2009). Acquisition, representation, and control of action. In MorsellaE.BarghJ. A.GollwitzerP. M. (eds.), Oxford handbook of human action (pp. 371–398). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
42.
HommelB.MüsselerJ.AscherslebenG.PrinzW. (2001). Codes and their vicissitudes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 910–926.
43.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vols. I, II). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
JanczykM.HeinemannA.PfisterR. (2012). Instant attraction: Immediate action-effect bindings occur for both, stimulus-and goal-driven actions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 446.
45.
JanczykM.PfisterR.CrognaleM. A.KundeW. (2012). Effective rotations: Action effects determine the interplay of mental and manual rotations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 489–501.
46.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
JirakD.MenzM. M.BuccinoG.BorghiA. M.BinkofskiF. (2010). Grasping language–a short story on embodiment. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 711–720.
48.
KalanthroffE.CohenN.HenikA. (2013). Stop feeling: Inhibition of emotional interference following stop-signal trials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 78.
49.
KentC.LambertsK. (2008). The encoding–retrieval relationship: Retrieval as mental simulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 92–98.
50.
KühnS.KeizerA. W.ColzatoL. S.RomboutsS. A.HommelB. (2011). The neural underpinnings of event-file management: Evidence for stimulus-induced activation of and competition among stimulus–response bindings. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 896–904.
51.
KundeW. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.
52.
KundeW.ReussH.KieselA. (2012). Consciousness and cognitive control. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 9–18.
53.
LabeyeE.OkerA.BadardG.VersaceR. (2008). Activation and integration of motor components in a short-term priming paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 129, 108–111.
54.
LoveJ.SelkerR.MarsmanM.JamilT.DropmannD.VerhagenA.WagenmakersE. J. (2015). JASP (Version 0.7), Computer software. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: JASP Project.
55.
Merleau-PontyM. (1962). Phenomenology of perception [Phénoménologie de la perception] (SmithC., Trans.). Paris: Éditions Gallimard. (Original work published 1945)
56.
MorrisonI.PeriniI.DunhamJ. (2013). Facets and mechanisms of adaptive pain behavior: Predictive regulation and action. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 755.
57.
MorrisonI.PoliakoffE.GordonL.DowningP. (2007). Response-specific effects of pain observation on motor behavior. Cognition, 104, 407–416.
58.
MorrisonI.TipperS. P.Fenton-AdamsW. L.BachP. (2013). “Feeling” others’ painful actions: The sensorimotor integration of pain and action information. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 1982–1998.
59.
NoëA. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT press.
60.
OsiurakF.BadetsA. (2014). Pliers, not fingers: Tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm. Cognition, 130, 66–73.
61.
OsiurakF.BadetsA. (2016). Tool use and affordance: Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches. Psychological Review, 123, 534–568.
62.
PessoaL. (2009). How do emotion and motivation direct executive control?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 160–166.
63.
PessoaL. (2013). The cognitive-emotional brain: From interactions to integration. Cambridge: PIT Press.
64.
PessoaL.PadmalaS.KenzerA.BauerA. (2012). Interactions between cognition and emotion during response inhibition. Emotion, 12, 192–197.
65.
PfisterR.JanczykM. (2012). Harleß’apparatus of will: 150 years later. Psychological Research, 76, 561–565.
66.
PfisterR.JanczykM.GressmannM.FournierL. R.KundeW. (2014). Good vibrations? Vibrotactile self-stimulation reveals anticipation of body-related action effects in motor control. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 847–854.
67.
PfisterR.KundeW. (2013). Dissecting the response in response–effect compatibility. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 647–655.
68.
PrinzW. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In Neuman and Prinz Relationships between Perception and Action (pp. 167–201). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
69.
PrinzW. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.
70.
ReynaudE.LesourdM.NavarroJ.OsiurakF. (2016). On the neurocognitive origins of human tool use: A critical review of neuroimaging data. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 64, 421–437.
71.
RouderJ. N.SpeckmanP. L.SunD.MoreyR. D.IversonG. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237.
ShackmanA. J.MaxwellJ. S.McMenaminB. W.GreischarL. L.DavidsonR. J. (2011). Stress potentiates early and attenuates late stages of visual processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 1156–1161.
74.
SlotnickS. D. (2004). Visual memory and visual perception recruit common neural substrates. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3, 207–221.
75.
StockA.StockC. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68, 176–188.
76.
ThillS.CaligioreD.BorghiA. M.ZiemkeT.BaldassarreG. (2013). Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 491–521.
77.
TuckerM.EllisR. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8, 769–800.
78.
VainioL.SymesE.EllisR.TuckerM.OttoboniG. (2008). On the relations between action planning, object identification, and motor representations of observed actions and objects. Cognition, 108, 444–465.
79.
VicarioC. M.RafalR. D.AvenantiA. (2015). Counterfactual thinking affects the excitability of the motor cortex. Cortex, 65, 139–148.
80.
WillemsR. M.ToniY.HagoortP.CasasantoD. (2009). Body—specific motor imagery of hand actions: Neural evidence from right—and left—hand. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, Article 39.
81.
WolpertD. M.FlanaganJ. R. (2001). Motor prediction. Current Biology, 11, 729–732.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
