This article was downloaded by:[Harvard College] On: 14 January 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 788713828] Publisher: Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cognitive Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713659042 What is the role of motor simulation in action and object recognition? Evidence from apraxia Gioia A. L. Negri a; Raffaella I. Rumiati a; Antonietta Zadini b; Maja Ukmar c; Bradford Z. Mahon de; Alfonso Caramazza de a Sector, Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, Trieste, Italy b S.C. di Riabilitazione, Ospedali Riuniti di Trieste, Trieste, Italy c U.C.O. di Radiologia, Università degli Studi di Trieste, Trieste, Italy d Center for Mind/Brain , University of Trento, Rovereto (TN), Italy e Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

First Published on: 29 November 2007 To cite this Article: Negri, Gioia A. L., Rumiati, Raffaella I., Zadini, Antonietta, Ukmar, Maja, Mahon, Bradford Z. and Caramazza, Alfonso (2007) 'What is the role of motor simulation in action and object recognition? Evidence from apraxia', Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24:8, 795 - 816 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/02643290701707412 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02643290701707412

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 atb nNFGaut eerhFlosi oBZM,NHGatD052t .. n yaPI rn oR.I.R. to in grant PRIN supported a was by manuscript and and this A.C., patients to of testing DC04542 Preparation in Grant manuscript. help NIH this B.Z.M., their to of for Fellowship version Sverzut Research earlier Anna Graduate and an NSF Menichelli an on by Alina comments part thank his authors for The Navarrete testing. Eduardo [email protected]). of (E-mail hours Italy Trieste, many throughout 2–4, Beirut via Studies, Advanced for School International ISAS hti h oeo oo iuaini cinadobject and action in simulation motor of role the is What 795–816 (8), 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE tp/wwpyrs.o/onuoscooyDOI:10.1080/02643290701707412 http://www.psypress.com/cogneuropsychology Liberman, 1985; Allport, of (e.g., processing production ceptual con- and the perceptual in involved mediate critically are actions that the processes that is same cognitive in idea longstanding A h uhr r rtflt h ainsadcnrlpriiat,a ela oterfmle,frterwligparticipation willing their for families, their to as well as participants, control and patients the to grateful are SISSA– authors Lab, NeuroImaging The and Neuropsychology Cognitive Negri, Laura Anna Gioia to addressed be should Correspondence etrfrMind for Center falregopo nltrlsrk ainsars ag ftssuigtesm e fcommon of set same the using tasks of performance range the a ( across studied patients patients we stroke All issue, unilateral production this objects. of motor address manipulable group of To large role analysis. a the conceptual of concerns and neuroscience perceptual cognitive in contemporary processes in issue important An bet n rm e usin bu h neecsta r eie yrcn nig ncognitive Keywords in findings recent and by actions merited of are recognition that recognize the inferences problematic the in to are about involved neuroscience. data ability questions constitutively These new the are objects. frame processes same and that between those motor objects document use that correlations to hypothesis we ability the reliable level, the for imitation from observed single-case pantomime dissociates and objects the we recognition, and At actions object level and recognition. group use pantomime object the and and recognition, pantomime pantomimes, At and object-associated pantomimes. use corresponding object same the recognize those objects, imitate the recognize objects, the # pai;Ebde onto;Ato eonto;Ojc recognition. Object recognition; Action cognition; Embodied Apraxia; : ontv ersineSco,Sul nenzoaeSproed td vnai ret,Italy Trieste, Avanzati, Studi di Superiore Internazionale Scuola Sector, Neuroscience Cognitive / ri cecs nvriyo rno oeeo(N,IayadHradUiest,Cmrde A USA MA, Cambridge, University, Harvard and Italy (TN), Rovereto Trento, of University Sciences, Brain 07Pyhlg rs,a mrn fteTyo rni ru,a nom business Informa an Group, Francis & Taylor the of imprint an Press, Psychology 2007 eonto?Eiec rmapraxia from Evidence recognition? ...d ailga Universita Radiologia, di U.C.O. ..d ibltzoe seaiRuiid ret,Tise Italy Trieste, Trieste, di Riuniti Ospedali Riabilitazione, di S.C. rdodZ ao n los Caramazza Alfonso and Mahon Z. Bradford ii .L er n afel .Rumiati I. Raffaella and Negri L. A. Gioia n ¼ noitaZadini Antonietta 7 eetse o hi blt odmntaeteueof use the demonstrate to ability their for tested were 37) aaUkmar Maja ` el td iTise ret,Italy Trieste, Trieste, di Studi degli ecpuladcneta nlsshsbeen has analysis conceptual in and processes motor of perceptual role the 1989). Stucchi, in interest & Recently, Viviani 1990; Freyd, & Shiffrar 1967; Studdert-Kennedy, & Shankweiler, Cooper, 795 Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 aaiisaeasmdt e h bv esnn ostruhol navr eea osra fteitreednebetween interdependence the of construal general very recognition. a action on basic” only “more through and goes reasoning reasoning social above order” The “higher be. putatively to assumed are capacities ER TAL. ET NEGRI httemr ai blte frecognizing such on of depend also abilities likely activation. would be motor basic objects would and more it actions then the observer, pro- that the motor other of in to activation states cesses on mental depend of attribution individuals, abilities, the “abstract” conceptual as more such and (putatively) perceptual If analysis. in role (i.e., critical constitutive) a play processes production object hypothesis motor the that following of and test stringent the recognition a offers for recognition action topic Studying particular reason. this We on objects. presented focus visually recognizing in actions and object-associated recog- presented in visually use nizing object subserve that others processes motor of & Gallese states 2005; al., 1998). mental et Goldman, Fogassi and 2003; (Adolphs, understanding intentions 2006; and Kiefer, 2003), the & Barsalou, Graf, & Helbig, Simmons 2005; (Gallese Lakoff, objects familiar & of recognition the recognition 2001), Gallese, & action Fogassi, 1967), (Rizzolatti, understanding al., Rizzolatti,and et & Liberman Buccino, 2002; Craighero, speech pro- Fadiga, in motor (e.g., involved that critically argued are been cesses proposed. has of been it instance, have formulations For cognition of such different theories of motor basis the many On system. acti- observations, motor require apparently the not acti- of do vation is that system tasks motor in vated the that methodologies, of range a using observations, numerous by stimulated 796 ik 95.Tu,i oo rdcinsystems production motor if 1920; Liepmann, Thus, 1988; 1905). Lucchelli, Pick, responses & motor basic Renzi impair- to (De that impairment sensory clinically an objects aphasia, or and to using ment, be attributed in actions be can impairment cannot an of apraxia as recognition defined for are Ideational systems the means motor objects. which in direct to a involved degree the provide testing patients apraxic nti ril eeaieterl fthose of role the examine we article this In 1 of analyses neuropsychological Cognitive hsln fraoigde o olwncsaiy tdpnso o oua h ontv ytm novdi hs various these in involved systems cognitive the modular how on depends It necessarily. follow not does reasoning of line This ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE 1 soitdwt h s ftoeojcsand actions objects those the themselves. of objects the recognizing use recognizing with the for with impaired patients associated be necess- then will objects arily using objects, for and impairments actions apraxic manipulable recognize to order or in necessary are iw nojc htafrstesm,o a 2005). or & Wolpert, same, Rizzolatti & e.g., Rizzolatti the see 2004; affords review Craighero, (for that monkey grasp the object similar, when an and the object views when an both active grasps is monkey maca- circuit In F5-aIPS the objects. activated ques, graspable of is presentation circuit upon frontal-parietal overlapping, also see 1995; discussion). 2002, for Baldissera, Pascual-Leone, Rizzolatti, & Fadiga, Kleiner-Fisman, & 2001; Maeda, 2002; Pavesi, Fadiga, Iacoboni, Fogassi, & Craighero, Cavallari, & Zaidel, Maeda, of Mazziotta, (Aziz-Zadeh, actions individual the another observe participants motor when of have cortices activation concurrent (TMS) the humans using stimulation demonstrated studies other magnetic Finally, 2004). of transcranial al., actions et when Buccino active the (e.g., is observe that humans circuit functional frontal-parietal humans, gous In homolo- putatively a described action. have studies imaging monkey) similar a or a monkey (human makes making individual the monkey another when the observes and when macaques movement both goal-directed active a in is described (F5-aIPS) that have circuit 2005) frontal-parietal Wolpert, 2004; Craighero, & & Rizzolatti Rizzolatti e.g., see review 1996; Rizzolatti, for & Fogassi, colleagues Fadiga, and Gallese, objects. Rizzolatti (e.g., actions, manipulable to and respect With actions during of activated are observation systems motor observers’ indicatingthat evidence empirical of array rich a is There this project for theoretical and Empirical ihrsett bet,aprilydsic,but distinct, partially a objects, to respect With / or / Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ihterue rvosatoshv reported have associated authors actions Previous the use. recognize those their recognize to with to is or either objects order use objects in to necessary ability not the that suggest patients and recognize objects. successfully and actions is to understand information order motor in of necessary activation action the of ognition, theories motor such the formu- of both of lations on Critically, activation proceed. successful for to order the recognition in necessary objects, is processes and motor recognition functionally the actions subserving of are those from production processes separable the action while version, subserving second recog- a object) On (and nition. action and production subserving processes action the and in one overlap is On action there 2005). version, Caramazza, & of Mahon see theories dis- cussion, (for motor distinguished motor be can Two representation the the object respectively. of and recognition, motor versions object recognition the of as action theory recognition of object theory involved and necessarily action is hypoth- system in the motor to the refer that 2000; We eses 1985). Allport, Haxby, al., see idea, et & Helbig Ungerleider, Pulvermu 2005; Martin, Lakoff, Gallese, & 2006; 2005; Gallese Menon, & 2005; Kyle, and Buxbaum, actions (e.g., of pro- cessing conceptual and evidence perceptual consti- in activation involved is tutively herein, such defined as of have simulation, motor basis authors that as the of objects on number argued A of manipulable simulation”. course and the “motor in actions processes observing mediate production that motor activation automatic of observer such to refer the of We action. activation overt in in structures results neural objects manipulable and 2004; Johnson-Frey, things 2003). Patterson, 1999; living & Brett, Martin, Kellenbach, and & things (Chao participants nonliving nonma- when to nipulable compared objects activated manipulable observe differentially areas premotor are and parietal posterior docu- that have mented studies imaging functional humans, In erpyhlgclivsiain fapraxic of investigations Neuropsychological actions of observation that indicate data Such le,20;fra ale rpslo this of proposal earlier an for 2005; ¨ller, / rmnplbeobjects manipulable or / betrec- object ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE oc,Vlnia aaoa aiai 2003; Capitani, 1995; al., & et Laiacona, Rapcsak Valentina, 1989; al., Rosci, et Pellat, Ochipa & 1998; Charnallet, Moreaud, 1994; 2001; & Montomura al., Yamadori, 1999; et Patterson, Halsband & Spatt, 2000; Hodges, al., & et Cubelli Schwartz, Schwartz,2000; & & Sirigu, Veramonti, Buxbaum, 2003; (Buxbaum Buxbaum, Klatzky, objects 2002; those Saffran, semantic retrieving identifying about or at objects information not similar or but same objects the using at impaired corre- the for associated recognizing movements. impairment for be object-associated sponding impairment necessarily an 2000; an not that al., with will is et objects 1991) Cubelli using al., (see et IAM Rothi the pre- The of (IAM). diction model as axemes axemes independent output model and the the input to separate refer assumes can that We effectors. inner- the subserving of processes vation to tied are represen- that those tations are axemes output analysis while perceptual actions, thoseof to of tied to models are refer that representations axemes to been input analogy processing, of has language is models By and that processing. “axeme” apraxia analogy language of term models the between evoke drawn The to input to “axemes”. refer as intended we representations output article, output this and and In input 1991). such (e.g., al., “lexicons” et action are Rothi output there and that such input proposed of separate basis been the has Heilman, On it 2001). dissociations, & al., et & Ochipa, Rumiati Mahon 1991; Rothi, 2004; 2005; Johnson-Frey, Caramazza, 2000; Spatt, Patterson, & Ralph, Lambon Bozeat, Shallice, Sala, Hodges, Della 2000; & discus- Boscolo, & Marchetti, and Cubelli, review see for sion Vorano, 1995; al., et Poizner, Zanini, Schwartz 2001; & Rumiati, Heilman, Anderson, & 1995; Ochipa, Rothi, Rapcsak, Crucian, Ochipa, 1989; Anderson, Halsband 2002; Rothi, Heilman, 1999; Mozaz, & 2001; Schiavetto, al., 2000; & et Ska, & Ska, Dumont Dumont, 1992; Pradat- Deloche, Bergego, & 2001; Diehl, Marchetti, & recognize Drei, Sala, Della to Cubelli, ability (Bartolo, using gestures spared object-associated relatively for but impairments objects demonstrating patients ainshv lobe eotdwoare who reported been also have Patients CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION 797 Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ER TAL. ET NEGRI ieiiainadrcgiin( recognition and imitation panto- mime Rumiati between correlation and weak comparable a Ukmar, reported a (2007) Canessa, In lobule. Tessari, in parietal analysis, rep- inferior neuroanatomically, left shared located, the such actions. are that hand resentations proposed authors transitive) Those (i.e., of perception object-directed and production ground rep- same resentations the that argued colleagues and Buxbaum between imitation, observed pantomime and correlation recognition the pantomime of pantomimes. basis imitating the in On pantomimes performance recognizing their in and patients on per- of the A formance patients between tasks. observed of was recognition correlation action reliable group and a imitation action across impairments association of of patterns analysed (2005) and colleagues Buxbaum data. neuropsychological of on basis advocated the been has recognition action of theory versa. under- vice and and recognize use objects, to stand object order in subserving necessary not processes are data the such recognition, that object suggest of to theory Contrary motor 2007). the Negri, Rumiati, & 1997; 2000; Gigli, Shallice, al., Lunardelli, et & Hodges Piccini, 1997; Lauro-Grotto, visuo- Carew, Buxbaum, of & (e.g., Schwartz, loss them about severe knowledge a semantic despite use correctly, to able objects this still are of who impairments semantic side patients with those opposite by represented The is dissociation 2001). double al., et Rumiati 798 re odcmn ru ee orltosin in correlations patients level unselected group of document We group to approaches. large order both a reason, adopts this in study study For not trends. present level are single the group that the overlooking dissociations with of line present risk that the cases the runs at level tasks across only group performance focusing in however, correlations time, on same pro- the cognitive At between relation cesses. the of error relatively view materials and a broad providing methods of same advantage same the the have the criteria on with evaluated tested and are who with patients patients damage. brain consecutive unilateral right 32 or of left either group a across eety oee,asrn omo h motor the of form strong a however, Recently, tde ae naaye flrenmesof numbers large of analyses on based Studies ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE r ¼ .32, p ¼ .07), MU)wowsuaaeo h iso the of aims the neuroradiologist of unaware a was by who template (M.U.) MRIcro stan- using a dard mapped onto were (www.mricro.com) The patients software patients. MRIcro 35 35 those for for available lesions were scans imaging Computed (MRI) resonance magnetic included. or (CT) were tomography patients previous history no Only and neurological lesions Trieste. of brain unilateral in ward focal with Riuniti rehabilitation Ospedali the the from recruited were 9.3 63.9 age (mean patients Patients Participants Method ics h mlctoso hs aafrthe for recognition. data We object and these cases. action of of single theories motor implications of have the analyses which discuss in recognition, between reported object and been and recognition use action object between and dissociations use and the object Buxbaum and by (2005) reproduced reported colleagues we correlations results, the our both anticipate to objects To successful manipulable occur? and for actions order of in recognition of necessary activation recog- the axemes) (i.e., object output simulation motor visual is subserving nition, and processes axemes axemes input output from from which separable to functionally recognition? measure are object the in axemes visual Second, output the subserving and are axemes processes input First, from 2003; follows. separable functionally as al., are et article (Rosci level 2007). al., et single-case dissociations Tessari the observed the and not trends have at level or group 2000) the al., both same ana- et single-case the or (Cubelli 2005) lyses level al., across group et on (Buxbaum and only trends focused study, have either same materials, patients the multiple the of within performance to praxis exceptions the ana- have lysed that potential studies Previous study pattern. level single- group to the at level profiles case behavioural provide the then of We analyses tasks. praxis across performance h usatv susa tk ntepresent the in stake at issues substantive The + oa f3 osctvl admitted consecutively 37 of total A . . er)to ati h td.Patients study. the in part took years) 3.9 + 04yas education years; 10.4 Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 iul ace o g n dcto ma age (mean education and 66 age for matched viduals Controls using A) identified been Appendix software. have MRIcro (see lesions the areas in involved Brodmann The study. atcpnsrcutdo h ai ftesm cri- same ( the control of teria basis with of the group on below second recruited participants A described hand. dominant tasks their performed They object-related session right-handed. experimental the were the they in the if part only took administered and 1971) were (Oldfield, Questionnaire They Handedness Edinburgh in surgery. ortho- Riuniti following treated paedic Ospedali were from the they the from where recruited Trieste, of as well were ward as rehabilitation relatives, group staff’s and patient patients’ the with er;euain10.4 education years; ad ecmue separate computed dominant their we with tests hand, praxis perform not were to deficits apraxic able with patients of Because number method. a RSDT the was with were A, determined Task also patient on impaired con- more to relatively a compared tasks. but B trols, and which A two Tasks both on in the impaired across dissociations, controls Strong significance within the on relation based the Task of on values determined range normal were the and within B, but Crawford in A, Task controls to on dissociations, compared by impaired software was patient Classical a article which the (2005). the using Garthwaite with (2006), Crawford released by and Garthwaite suggested classical and as detect dissociations, to strong computed was (RSDT) education. or age either for groups groups, control patient the the and or groups, control the between ifrne (all no were There differences hand. with complete dominant to their patients, baseline with able tasks not of the were suitable hemiparesis performance to a the due who have compare This to to below hand. which order described left) in (i.e., task was nondominant imitation their action using the on h eie tnadzdDfeec Test Difference Standardized Revised The + N oa f2 erlgclyhatyindi- healthy neurologically 25 of total A . 1yas dcto 8.96 education years; 11 ¼ 1 ih-add g 69.9 age right-handed, 11; t crs aigit con h cor- the account into taking scores, t s , + ,idpnetsamples) independent 1, . er)wr tested were years) 4.2 t + crsfor scores . years) 4.1 + 6.85 ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE iee cetbe(.. crda 1) The “1”). as 29 scored was score named con- possible (i.e., they were maximum if acceptable names “1” Dialectal not sidered and correctly. were object object they the the if name “0” to scored partici- able was a as response item, (presented each pant’s objects For 29 photographs). the coloured name to in asked were listed is recognition Object stimuli of set common B). of complete Appendix objects 29 (the of set use following same the the and completed over controls patients tasks, 25 All ran- of task. and group use tasks the object imitation the the for for domized the fixed of was presentation items of order the par- whereas way). across ticipants, counterbalanced other was tasks any of in order The about or pro- controls) (verbally or performance was their (patients feedback participants no to tasks, vided experimental all In in study summarized Experimental are patients neuropsychological 37 The A. all Appendix home. for the at in results room or quiet a and in hospital tested functions, were praxis, They executive memory. language, abilities, evaluating visuo-spatial assessment neuropsycho- a logical administered were patients 37 (see All baseline assessment Neuropsychological the which as of data). all used for regardless 1 was Table same group the The imitation control pantomime hand. remained the left for task findings nondominant of those their pattern performed who with controls 11 tasks performance of group the the on of based imitation pantomime tep,wr crda ros npaeo the of correct. place In as errors. as first scored scored the were at was even attempt, the paraphasias, response phonological semantic produced a However, the made patient having error, the after name If errors correct phonological allowed dysfluencies. were making or patients after level, self-correct basic to a recognize at to able object were the deter- patients to the was whether task mine object-naming the of objective CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION ainsadcnrl ( controls and Patients . / 9 eas the Because 29. n ¼ 799 25) Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ER TAL. ET NEGRI al 1. Table eesmnial eae otetre (e.g., list 800 target The scissors). the eraser, to distractors: Distractors pen; related photograph. target: target semantically the were of aloud said name experimenter the presented the were and photographs simultaneously, colour three in task which multiple-choice a administered were impair- ments language severe with patients task, naming a Note: ain orc t correct % Patient ..1004 0 .49 506 .27 08 –2.91 –0.81 –0.48 70 0.38 –7.38 –0.88 0.72 –7.78 0.18 –2.98 0.60 85 –3.18 42.5 82.5 –6.97 1.14 –3.72 0.76 40 –2.78 –6.97 –2.12 85 1.17 0.94 –1.20 –2.78 0.42 –2.32 –3.02 45 0.60 1.14 –7.38 0 42.5 95 65 –3.16 82.5 45 –8.47 –3.20 –2.98 1.17 –6.88 85 –0.14 –3.51 –5.75 –1.40 0.83 30 –3.33 –1.58 96 –0.07 42.5 –0.45 –2.19 –1.64 0.52 35.6 –1.89 –1.29 95 27.5 0.58 63 0.33 1.04 –10.0 –4.46 100 52.5 52.5 –2.10 –0.02 –3.20 70 1.96 98.5 –1.76 1.12 0.77 87.5 50 –4.52 –10.1 1.04 48 100 –0.41 –3.02 –3.33 –1.58 0.83 1.56 1.04 1.96 80 47.5 86 0.77 –6.46 1.48 0.49 10 –0.96 –1.89 27.5 100 81.5 90 75 1.56 –4.56 –2.51 –0.14 –10.98 100 87.5 1.08 –7.81 100 0.49 100 90 65 –1.04 –4.56 –7.38 0.94 50 100 –1.40 –0.61 –0.47 72 –4.01 86 –1.97 0.52 –0.36 1.30 58.5 92.5 –2.98 0.44 100 –2.51 72 –5.25 –1.64 –0.41 0.57 72.5 –1.34 91 100 –3.32 Z.E. 70 –7.71 93 0.91 97 42.5 2.02 –0.61 0.52 –5.35 –5.16 98.5 52.5 Z.A. 63.3 97 –1.97 93 –1.00 –2.51 –0.32 –0.36 94 –1.35 –1.99 85 T.S. 72.5 0.49 90 1.59 69 –3.92 1.04 –1.25 –2.91 –0.61 98.5 67.5 –0.65 90 T.O. –0.82 93 –7.71 97 1.04 89.5 –5.35 –4.01 –0.81 –0.14 S.V. 55 –0.1 72.5 0.49 67.5 –1.09 –3.16 100 1.12 100 0.52 –1.67 90 100 –1.99 S.T. –1.97 90 –0.48 17.5 –0.36 –0.45 100 –7.78 95.5 S.R. 60.5 –2.29 –1.88 1.30 70 0.83 0.49 –0.21 79 0.77 0.38 –0.96 100 98.5 S.O. –3.18 –9.58 93 55 97 –1.97 –3.72 –2.48 70 1.04 –1.67 77.5 86.5 0.91 0.40 S.C. 0.13 –13.44 90 87.5 1.04 100 –1.20 100 R.O. 0.49 –0.68 40 85 97 –0.62 50 40 –1.76 –0.86 100 0.06 0.68 83 –8.59 P.T. 88 0.10 1.04 0.49 –1.00 90 100 0.33 65 P.O. –1.13 1.08 –6.16 –1.58 –1.76 0.49 –3.33 –3.57 86 100 93 –3.72 77.5 88.6 0.24 P.N. 62.5 0.83 96.5 0.49 100 –2.39 –1.89 0.77 100 –0.14 0.74 86 P.I. –1.20 60 1.04 –5.25 35 –0.62 80 1.12 –2.08 100 P.E. 96 0.49 0.24 –0.45 50 50 100 0.49 M.Z. 100 –1.88 90 65 93 –4.46 –0.36 0.77 100 87 93 M.E. 0.49 86 96 1.04 70 –0.52 100 0.04 –4.52 M.A. 0.49 0.58 93 0.83 0.76 87 100 87.5 1.04 0.44 G.O. –3.13 93.5 0.49 –0.28 100 100 F.U. 0.23 10 0.40 –0.96 0.83 –2.79 100 100 F.S. 0.44 72.5 100 97 0.49 81 100 –3.22 90 F.L. 82.5 96 1.04 –5.24 80 –3.65 F.G. 100 –1.97 97 –0.36 80.5 100 –1.35 0.49 D.U. 0.83 –1.76 78.5 93 100 D.R. 93 97 –7.71 –2.36 89.5 D.P. 0.49 86 1.04 100 D.M. 83 100 –5.24 90 1.04 C.S. 0.49 1.04 100 100 C.I. 0.49 93 100 C.E. –7.71 100 100 C.A. –1.97 100 B.R. 90 0.49 B.O. 97 B.L. 100 B.E. B.A. A.N. 5controls. 25 ainsaesre lhbtclyb hi initials. their by alphabetically sorted are Patients umr fpromneo l ainsars l xeietltasks experimental all across patients all of performance of Summary betrecognition Object ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE b 1controls. 11 score orc t correct % Pantomime eonto betuePnoieimitation Pantomime use Object recognition score orc t correct % score yteeprmne)o betue(ihteobject the (with use object of experimenter) the (performed by pantomimes 29 name to asked were 25) atmm recognition Pantomime C. Appendix for in reported test recognition, is below) pantomime multiple-choice see (and the recognition for object distractors of orc t correct % score a t score ainsadcnrl ( controls and Patients . b orc t correct % mtto fintransitive of Imitation actions score a t score n ¼ b Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 hl h te ru fcnrl ( controls hand, of right group dominant other the the with while task this formed o eonzbe h aiu osbescore possible was action maximum 58 was the The but if errors recognizable. points with 0 not imitated and was 1 recognizable, action imitated, still points correctly the 2 was if of action point total the if A given sub- follows: were was as and scored videotaped this sequently during was visible Performance not task. were exper- objects the The by demonstrated imenter. corresponding objects 29 pantomimes same the the to imitate to pantomimes asked of Imitation are test recognition C. Appendix pantomime hands, in multiple-choice listed the the washing of for version materials distractors: target: The (e.g., shaving). an teeth; target the depicted to brushing possible, similar visually related when action semantically and, exper- were photographs the three) Distractors by of pantomimed imenter. (out action picture the the they depicting indicate which to in asked task were multiple-choice a completed was score possible recog- maximum 29 a correctly The action. not using the did nize are participant (0 the incorrect “you if as object points) (e.g., scored the were action or Responses hammer”). the nail”) a in driving involved “ham- are (e.g., “you action the mering”, either named patient point) the (1 if correct as scored were Responses absent). eeakdt efr eaaeiiaintask, imitation separate a perform to asked actions were intransitive of Imitation was not score was still possible action 58 but maximum the if The errors points recognizable). if with 0 point performed and 1 recognizable, correctly, was used action was were the object points the (2 if task in given used pantomimes those of videotaping as imitation same applied the The were hand, objects. criteria in 29 scoring and object the of the use with the demonstrate, to asked use Object hand. left nondominant their with task this formed / / 9 ainswt eeelnug impairments language severe with Patients 29. 58. / 8 n ru fcnrl ( controls of group One 58. ainsadcnrl ( controls and Patients . l atcpnswere participants All . l participants All . n n n ¼ ¼ ¼ 5 were 25) 1 per- 11) 5 per- 25) ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE efre hsts ihternnoiatleft nondominant their right with hand. ( dominant task controls of this the group performed other with the while task hand, was this action performed possible the 40 maximum still was if The score but recognize. points errors to with 0 were impossible imitated and points was point 2 recognizable, 1 action imitated, of the correctly was total if action the A if above: given closer). scored described come then was to as and someone videotaped and was for back Performance signal finger to index the forward moving meaningful (e.g., 10 and gestures finger) objects (e.g., little and meaningless which thumb 10 raising in including (i.e., involved), not actions are imitation intransitive and the 20 Motti, involves of task Renzi, This De (1980). by Nichelli devised that to similar s n atmm mtto ( imitation pantomime and use ( recognition recognition pantomime and ( use object between sets 3). data and both 2 with Tables same (see the essentially were both and over correlations out These carried objects. 29 were of correlations set performed same were Pearson’s the that with tasks praxis computed four the To we between have administered. end, were different that that that the correlations tasks between praxis-related observed the been reproduce previously poss- to is the it group patients, ible of our stroke in logic unilateral whether unselected The consider of to patients. is of study present observed numbers action correlations large in level in processes group motor on of inferences research recognition role based recent has the 2005) regarding Introduction, al., et the Buxbaum (e.g., in noted As analyses Correlational 1. is Table objects in 29 of and summarized set praxis same the the using on tasks patients recognition all of performance The Results p , hr eerlal n oiiecorrelations positive and reliable were There CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION 01 e iue1) betueadobject and use object 1a), Figure see .001; / p 0 n ru fcnrl ( controls of group One 40. , 0;seFgr b,adobject and 1b), Figure see .05; t soe n a data raw and -scores p , 01.There .001). n n ¼ ¼ 801 11) 25) Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ER TAL. ET NEGRI ewe h blte eurdt efr the perform relation to a required is there abilities that the indicate not, itself, between does the of tasks different and across the in on patients performance of group between correlations (2005). al. et Buxbaum by observed pattern the reproduces above) and (reported imitation recognition the pantomime pantomime vein, same between pantomimes, the correlation In pantomimes. recognizing imitating the and in objects, performance from with correlated recognizing follow performance is objects that to using in above) argued (reported been observations infer- have such instance, For ences objects. and recog- actions to order nize in required are production action in ainshssre steeprclbssfrthe of for group basis representations empirical a that the inference within as served tasks has patients across correlations of panto- and recognition imitation. and mime object cor- between recognition reliable no relation also was pantomime There recognition. object between lation between correlation imitation ( pantomime positive and and recognition pantomime reliable a was à 2. Table 802 à 3. Table betuse Object betuse Object atmm eonto .581 recognition Pantomime atmm eonto .580 recognition Pantomime betrcgiin.7 7.371 37 .271 recognition Object betrcgiin.7 7.371 37 .271 recognition Object orlto ssgicn tte.5lvl(2-tailed). level .05 the at significant is Correlation orlto ssgicn tte.5lvl(2-tailed). level .05 the at significant is Correlation p , h eepeec fsaitclysignificant statistically of presence mere The sdsusdi h nrdcin h presence the Introduction, the in discussed As 01 e iue1)btn eibecorre- reliable no but 1c) Figure see .001; eut ftecreainlaayi optdo h scores t the on computed analysis correlational the of Results eut ftecreainlaayi optdo h a scores raw the on computed analysis correlational the of Results ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE ero ero ero N r Pearson N r Pearson N r Pearson ero ero ero N r Pearson N r Pearson N r Pearson atmm eonto betuePnoieimitation Pantomime use Object recognition Pantomime atmm eonto betuePnoieimitation Pantomime use Object recognition Pantomime / rcse involved processes Ãà Ãà orlto ssgicn tte.0 ee (2-tailed). level .001 the at significant is Correlation (2-tailed). level .001 the at significant is Correlation icse nti utpesnl-aeanalysis. are multiple-single-case that this cases in those of discussed summary a provides 4 Table dissociations. this three from these demonstrated patients who group describe we pantomime impaired Here at are spared recognition. who but imitation reported pantomime cases at been be also have can rec- and pantomime actions ognition (a) unimpaired object-associated despite observed of pro- impaired duction that reported pre- have studies of case number vious a Introduction, the in discussed As dissociations Single-case “atypical” an from drawn patients. of being be group as cannot below criticized multiple- described the approach , this single-case in are In tasks dissociate. between there clearly correlated fact are though that level “abilities” even single-case the the that at correlations, show demonstrated next this the we In that 2005). section al., show et Buxbaum previously to (e.g., those discussed to is comparable is demonstrating patients patients of group the of of within group obtained be logic present can correlations the such that However, tasks. Ãà à Ãà à / r()ojc eonto.There recognition. object (b) or 7.4 37 .597 .148 37 37 7.5 37 .593 .154 37 37 .779 .778 Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà 37 37 37 37 Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 blt oiiaetesm actions. set same same the ( the the imitate correlated imitate to to ability was patients actions by the object-associated of of ability of set The same performed C. the objects. use those ( to when correlated patients the was of objects actions ability The correlated B. was experimenter. objects object-associated 29 of set same a use to patients ( of ability The A. 1. Figure uigota es oetpso eea iulipimn seApnie n C). and A Appendices (see tests, impairment screening decision visual object general and a (VOSP) of Battery Perception types Space some and least Object Visual at the out on ruling range normal the within was patient p , 2 ti nieyta ..sipimn o eonzn h atmmscnb xlie yagnrlvsa maret eas the because impairment, visual general a by explained be can pantomimes the recognizing for impairment P.I.’s that unlikely is It 01 pamnsro ihteraiiyt eonz the recognize to ability their with rho) Spearman’s .001; ru ee orltosi efrac costasks. across performance in correlations level Group p , 03 ihteraiiyt recognize to ability their with .003) p , 01 ihtheir with .001) ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE h utpecoc esoso h tasks). the of recognizing versions with in performed multiple-choice deficit tasks the recognition a (both with recognition objects panto- associated pantomime for imitating was deficit for P.I.’s unimpaired B.O. mimes. were patients P.I. Both and pantomimes. recognizing at associated impaired the being despite objects use object to compared use recognition pantomime Impaired impaired recog- objects. were recognizing Z.A. object in and S.T. the whereas on task, and nition normally F.S. performed Patients R.O. actions. as well intransitive as pantomimes imitating imitating patients these at of impaired 4 were All on range. was control pantomimes the performance of recognizing outside patients, and and 4 use object 2a these both For Figure 4). (see Table pantomimes compared (i.e., objects recognizing using deficits to for dissociations) disproportionate strong with presented C.S. and D.R., B.R., for limits B.E., normal and within S.C., but S.V., in impaired intran- was of actions imitation sitive The range. normal the others in the recog- were while pan- D.R.) object for and impaired (S.V. for were imitation 2 tomime range patients, 6 normal the while Of the D.R.) nition. in and was B.R., recognizing S.C., C.S. 6 at B.E., impaired these (S.V., were Of objects them B.R.). of D.R., 5 S.V., patients, (S.C., recog- task pantomime the nition performed the who of those version in multiple-choice and C.S.) recognition (B.E., pantomime test the of administered version were recognizing naming who the patients for was in both pattern range observed This B.R., objects normal pantomimes. using B.E., the object-associated at S.C., within impaired pantomime (S.V., were but C.S.) patients and to 6 D.R., 4), compared Table use recognition object Impaired betrcgiin h bevto faselective for a range of observation normal The the recognition. in object was B.O. Interestingly, w ains(..adPI)wr beto able were P.I.) and (B.O. patients Two . nte ains(...... n Z.A.) and S.T., R.O., (F.S., patients 4 Another CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION sdpce nFgr a(e also (see 2a Figure in depicted As . 803 2 Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ie,dsrprint)dissociations. disproportionate) (i.e., ER TAL. ET NEGRI oitos nuigojcscmae oobject to 804 compared objects dis- using strong in (i.e., sociations) impairments tasks. disproportionate whereas these for actions, range normal the intransitive in was of C.I. imitation, imitation for pantomime impaired and were recognition, F.S. and pantomime objects. R.O., recognizing B.L., for Patients range were but normal objects the using within in impaired C.I., were R.O., F.S.) (B.L., and patients 4 2b, Figure recognition in object depicted to compared use object Impaired recognition. object and processes action for dissociable functionally suggests 1986), agnosia termed pantomime pantomimes, recognizing for impairment 2. Figure w ains(..adSV)peetdwith presented S.V.) and (S.T. patients Two obedsoitosbtenojc s n atmm eonto A n betueadojc eonto (B). recognition object and use object and (A) recognition pantomime and use object between dissociations Double ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE Rti ak Heilman, & Mack, (Rothi, .As ihntenra ag o mttn panto- for impaired imitating actions. was intransitive C.E. for imitating patient only range mul- while normal mimes, the (using the performed patients task within 4 this These version). in were tiple-choice impaired same D.M. was the and whereas P.I. pantomimes, using T.O., recognizing for for C.E., unimpaired were range Patients but normal objects. recognition the object P.I.) within for and impaired D.M., T.O., were (C.E., patients use 4 object contrast, to compared recognition object Impaired range. normal pantomimes the in recognizing was for S.V. actions. while impaired intransitive was and S.T. for pantomimes impaired also imitating were patients Both recognition. à niae strong Indicates .In Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 Note: al 4. Table iue1 e loBxame l,20)we 2005) al., et Buxbaum to also see compared 1; Figure imitation recognition pantomime pantomime Impaired patient range. normal while the in actions, was G.O. intransitive impaired imitating were B.E. for and impaired Z.A. Patients was task. for this Patients Z.A. on range while normal task. the pantomimes, this within imitating were on G.O. G.O. impaired and while B.E. were normal recognition Z.A. the pantomime and within was for B.E. range Patient to use. compared object recognition strong object (i.e., for dissociations) deficits disproportionate with sented mardojc use object Impaired use object Impaired eetvl impaired Selectively object Impaired mardpantomime Impaired ( recognition object to compared recognition pantomime to compared imitation action and pantomime use object to compared recognition oojc use object to compared recognition n oa f3ptet ZA,BE,GO)pre- G.O.) B.E., (Z.A., patients 3 of total A ¼ “ p 5.Tesbcit“C niae httemlil-hievrino h akwscmltdb h patient. the by completed was task the of version multiple-choice the that indicates “MC” subscript The 25). niae efrac ihntenra ag;“”idctsipie efrac oprdt oto participants control to compared performance impaired indicates “X” range; normal the within performance indicates ” ipie rfieo ainsdsusdi h text the in discussed patients of profile Simplified sdsusdaoe(see above discussed As . Z.A. S.V. S.T. F.S. C.I. R.O. X B.L. P.I. B.O. Z.A. S.T. X F.S. X C.S. X X D.R. B.R. B.E. S.C. ..X B.E. X X P.I. X D.M. T.O. C.E. P.T. G.O. R.O. Patient ..X S.V. initials a a a a a a a a a p pp p p p pp pp pp X XX X X X X X X p p recognition Object MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC X X X X p p p p X X p X X X XXXX X p ppppppppppp p XXXX Pantomime recognition MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC MC ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE eet nipratecpint h ru level group the to exception important an naming resents and using in range objects. normal 35% the was and and within to pantomimes able object-associated was (36.5% P.T. recognize However, gestures meaningful respectively). correct, for meaningless gestures, impaired “intransitive” and equivalently both of was category P.T. imitating the at actions. Within intransitive pattern, impaired and level actions was object-associated group P.T. their this patient and to contrary pantomimes However, pantomimes. imitate object-associated recognize to to ability ability patients the between of correlation reliable a observed h atr fpromneo ain ..rep- P.T. patient of performance of pattern The CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION pp pp X X XX X XX XX X XX X X X XX X p pp X X XX p XX pp X X XX XX X X XX XX X Object use pp p pp p p XX pp p Pantomime imitation X X X X X nrniieactions intransitive mtto of Imitation 805 Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ER TAL. ET NEGRI rmnuoscooia aata action that data argument the neuropsychological for basis corre- the These from as use. served panto- have object lations between recognition and and recognition pantomime Buxbaum mime imitation between also pantomime 2005) there and (see al., level, correlations group et dis- reliable the the been At were have that that and reported. level level previously single-case reported group the at previously the sociations been at the reproduced both associations have We at the level. analyses single-case both out the and carried group we claims cal group the at in tasks associations level. different of on across basis based theoretical the are performance the on patterns developed level contrast, been group have In that patient. claims within from tasks same follow across the analyses performance single-case in of developed dissociations basis been pantomimes. the have recognizing that on claims object-associated in theoretical and The imitating recog- objects in same and been involved those critically has are nizing it objects involved patterns, using processes in level production On motor group that recognition. order argued of object in basis necessary or the not action are successful use associ- for object processes been with has production it ated motor analyses, patients. that single-case apraxic of argued of basis studies the on On based have that made claims been theoretical address in directly divergence to recent was a study this of objective The DISCUSSION GENERAL al., et 2007; Rumiati al., F.G., et 2001; Tessari al., 2001). in et 23 Bartolo and B.S., Hagmann, 12 & Cases Goldenberg 1997; E.N.; and have (L.K. imitating ges- tures recognize at to able studies impaired still but gestures are meaningless who Other successfully patients to from reported pantomimes. possible “disconnected” still is are recognize it axemes axemes, that input output indicates if P.T. of even performance The pattern. 806 nodrt drs hsdvrec ntheoreti- in divergence this address to order In ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE iinpoess hscnlso en htwe that recog- means object conclusion and This axemes processes. nition successful input the output for of of order functioning in integrity necessary the not is (a) that be axemes functionally (b) that to are and means order axemes dissociable, input This in recognize and objects. axemes necessary output to recognize not to is able able objects not be ability use is the to to (c) pantomimes and order pantomimes; imitate be object-associated to to in order ability necessary in pantomimes; the necessary object-associated (b) not recognize to is ability able objects The use (a) dis- following: to Caramazza, These the 2005). indicate see Miceli, in sociations agrammatism, & discussion Capitani, of similar Capasso, impaired context a and be (for the pantomime recognition in can object performance imitation use normal object despite pantomime both observed that dissociations reported. indicate and the cases have and hand, single 2005) within other we al., the that et On correlations (Buxbaum level others group the consistent the are and recognition with IAM action of the theory motor both rec- action Importantly, of theory ognition. can motor model the This with 1991). contrasted al., be et functionally Rothi are (see axemes separable model) output and axeme input which (independent we in IAM Introduction the the In described abilities. versus theoretical associations of of dissociations specific observations and between proposals evidence”, logical was pantomimes recognizing objects. who using for and observed rela- reverse. unimpaired was was the but tively pantomimes, as imitating patient for well were impaired one as who recognition, Third, unimpaired reverse. relatively object observed but the for use were object as for well impaired patients as recognition, Second, unimpaired were relatively action who but for use observed object were for impaired recog- patients object and First, action nition. of individual theories our motor problematic observed the are for also profiles within performance we whose However, cases patients, of recognition. group involved action constitutively in are processes production hr sa smer,wti “neuropsycho- within asymmetry, an is There Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 hoiso cinadojc eonto may recognition object support. and empirical find action motor the of comprise the theories of that which assumptions consider individual we rec- particular, object In and action ognition. in simulation motor of possible roles some closely remaining more the consider For we objects 2007). discussion, Martin, activated manipulable see review, subserving observe (for automatically structures participants are brain when production that variance recognize at fact motor to be the to order seem with in would actions necessary and objects not are cesses al., and et Mahon object of see discussion to, 2007). processes, (for recognition inputs processes object important recognition as modulate, action not that serve mean may not or processes does production important conclusion is this motor It that recognition. note object to theories and motor the action of of forms strong the reject must htteatvto ftemtrsse srequired is system the motor the is of by recognition activation object the shared and that action assumption of theories al., see second motor et recognition, The Rizzolatti action 1997; 2001). of Prinz, 1970; theory applies Greenwald, it motor as the discussion hypothesis” to (for matching “direct observer activates this the of of automatically system object motor the manipulable action a an of or observation that is hypotheses, common both to assumption, first The sep- assumptions. two into arate object decomposed be and each action this can of recognition to theories According motor the occur. and construal, actions to of objects recognition manipulable successful necessary acti- for is order the processes in not production motor or of whether vation regarding of theoreti- neutral construal is it cally this because simulation” chose “motor term We the objects. recognizing and of course actions motor the of in activation simu- processes automatic production Motor the to simulation”: refers lation “motor operational of an introduced definition we Introduction the In in recognition? simulation object motor and of action role the is What h ocuinta oo rdcinpro- production motor that conclusion The ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE (read n a nwihw ih eal ogtsome get processes to the articulating able by be is issue might this on we traction which in way One and for objects use categorize) order (i.e., in the recognize required accurately is about to that commitments information various the of entail nature may it neutral,as theory not is deployed is “recognition” the term which in current way The term recognition. object the and action our how discussing when obvious out fleshed not respects be should is “recognition” it that generality in knowledge This 2000;1991). al., al., et Martin Pulvermu et 2005; Caramazza, Helbig al., & 2003; Mahon 2005; al., et et Lakoff, Kellenbach Cubelli 2004; Johnson-Frey, 2006; & 2005; Gallese al., very 2000; et been have (Buxbaum recognition general in processes duction the in involved system causally motor not Why the is task? is: activation of that question activation if be object basic there and more would action motor A in do other role recognition? play In What processes not: necessary. is production of question not retrieval the the is words, (undisputed) which information in the automati- tasks motor are light in regions activated new motor cally that a fact in empirical con- sets This objects. pro- or clusion successful actions motor either for of necessary that recognition not are indicate processes herein duction The reported reviewed occur. been have and to that that recognition data claim neuropsychological successful in they for retrieved be that order must in information which motor-relevant processed, in ways are object the stimuli and about manipulable action theories are of and recognition theories motor actions The view view objects. engaged the observers “automatically” is supporting when system data motor the empirical that of of wealth notion the activation. to “necessary” to to given opposed measure as be “automatic” the can in substance only which obtains theoreti- assumptions two of cal these validity between distinction The a objects. drawing manipulable and actions oti on,dsusoso h oeo pro- of role the of discussions point, this To a is there Introduction, the in reviewed As CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION necessary / le,20;Rsie l,20;Rtie al., et Rothi 2003; al., et Rosci 2005; ¨ller, racrtl dniyojcsfrnaming. for objects identify accurately or o ucsflrcgiinof recognition successful for ) 807 Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ER TAL. ET NEGRI in a ocr edaklosfo motor from loops feedback func- concern exclusive may mutually not tion, state and a alternative, in An organism serve vis-a the readiness may keeping auto- of system of the motor function that the the is of activation possibility spreading matic One “automatic” activation. such what by remain of unaddressed served ultimate would remain is architecture purpose the would and an It so, actions such unresolved: for Even view reason objects. observers motor system manipulable of when activation cognitive the processes the explain collectively throughout acti- that of flow dynamics the vation regarding [x] assumptions 2007). Caramazza, & lines, Mahon these see along considerations the other throughout such (for flow system activation model, of informative dynamics be the this to of taken On be would activation objects. motor actions manipulable view observers or task- when in situations activated irrelevant are why processes explain to production order why in motor made be assump- of to have further would A explanation tion “disembodied” activation. such natural be strongest would no there its provides in form, IAM, necess- The not (e.g., is ary. activation such single-case structures that the suggest However, analyses parietal 2001). Chao, posterior & Martin pre- and activates motor differentially objects of pictures naming manipulable instance, appar- For not required. would be activation ently such which that in activated tasks fact is in axemes) the output of (e.g., system explanation motor no the provides it that satisfactory Left in not is recognition. model production, this object however, unspecified, action and recognition, which mediate in action 1991) processes al., et Rothi separate 2000; al., et (Cubelli access”. conceptual h em“eonto”myfatoaeinto fractionate naming may for “recognition and “recognition” use” for “recognition the term that use suggest dissociations the nevertheless Such can correctly? objects who but conceptual or judgements) naming at impaired for is (e.g., who objects patient recognizing a observe to possible How it “recognition”. is term the by implicated are that 808 o icsin e sasm oestof set some assume us let discussion, For IAM the proposed have authors Previous ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE ` vsisimdaeenvironment. immediate its -vis / yaiso nomto erea ihnthe within retrieval the information about sensory implies reconsider of evidence to dynamics activation have the would that what one to relevant then longer neurop- hypothesis, no the that were way data a such sychological in changed be hypothesis to cognition were embodied that the for If problematic hypothesis. the are then data hypothesis, neuropsychological cognition evidence argument, embodied as the taken to of for is measure evidence the activation line In the through. which This go not does relevant. however, activation is only evidence hypothesis—that embo- cognition the to died relevant neu- not these are data that ropsychological perspective, cognition embodied functional- and data. data, neuroimaging neuropsychological neurophysiological what the by given data, on provided facilitation, such evidence constraints address by strong clear now implied be can with might We question action It recognition. this normal activation system. object facilitates whether to and information the as motor issue in of non-motor-relevant open processed an which remains in is way information information motor that the case other the shapes In be discussion). may for it 2007, words, al., et processing Mahon conceptual (see and perceptual to processes rcse n otn otie ihnthe within contained that content the issue out and important fleshing involves An processes outlined neuropsychological research be features. further to basic merits praxis in its of model in observed a level permit that studies group been level single-case the To the have at at objects. dissociations associations the manipulable and the and point, con- output actions this impoverished impaired level, of some to cepts have on as have, who question axemes open patients an successful whether remains for it necessary that not recognition, are indicate processes analyses have output we single-case data from the conceptual reported while of instance, simu- richness For motor the experience. to (i.e., contributes information acti- lation) motor automatic the of whether vation decided be cannot it lentvl,i ih eage rmastrong a from argued be might it Alternatively, ntebsso h vdneaalbet date, to available evidence the of basis the On / oo systems. motor Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ubu,L . cwrz .F,&Crw .G. T. Carew, & F., M. Schwartz, J., L. Buxbaum, ubu,L . afa,E .(02.Koldeof Knowledge (2002). M. E. Saffran, & J., L. Buxbaum, ubu,L . ye .M,&Mnn .(05.On (2005). R. Menon, & M., K. Kyle, J., L. I., Buxbaum, Patteri, N., Canessa, F., Lui, G., Buccino, egg,C,Paa-ih,P,&Dlce .(1992). G. Deloche, & P., Pradat-Diehl, C., Bergego, atl,A,Cbli . el aa . ri . & S., Drei, S., Sala, Della R., Cubelli, A., Bartolo, adsea . aalr,P,Cageo . aia L. Fadiga, & L., Craighero, P., Cavallari, F., Baldissera, & J., Mazziotta, E., Zaidel, F., Maeda, L., Aziz-Zadeh, modular memory, Distributed (1985). A. D. Allport, dlh,R 20) ontv ersineo human of neuroscience Cognitive (2003). R. Adolphs, REFERENCES and action mediate recognition. that object systems input putative 19) h oeo eatcmmr nojc use. object in memory Neuropsychology semantic Cognitive of role The (1997). betmnplto n betfunction: object subjects. non-apraxic Language and and and Brain apraxic in manipulation Dissociations object 25 object- humans. skilled in actions of related recognition and imitation serving sub- representations Internal study. neurons: mirror beyond fMRI An Neuroscience Cognitive non-conspecifics: per- of actions Journal by of recognition Neural the formed (2004). in al. involved et circuits F., Benuzzi, G., Lagravinese, objets. pai ide Apraxie ennfladmaigesgsuereproduction gesture apraxia. in meaningless between and dissociation meaningful Double (2001). C. Marchetti, bevto fhn cin nhumans. in during Neuroscience of actions excitability Journal hand spinal of of observation Modulation (2001). study. TMS A Research observation: Brain Experimental action facili- during motor in tation Lateralization (2002). M. Iacoboni, & Newman Livingstone. Churchill K. York: New S. (Eds.), In Epstein R. dysphasia. and subsystems 165–178. oilbehaviour. social 226–239. , eu eNeuropsychologie de Revue eie aucitacpe 6Spebr2007 September 26 accepted manuscript Revised ´ Cortex tree eonisned ’tlsto des l’utilisation de reconnaissance et atorie eie aucitrcie 9Ags 2007 August 29 received manuscript Revised is ulse nie2 oebr2007 November 29 online published First , 37 aueRvesNeuroscience Reviews Nature urn esetvsi dysphasia. in perspectives Current , aucitrcie 1Arl2007 April 11 received Manuscript 82 696–699. , , 13 179–199. , , 190–194. , 14 ontv ri Research Brain Cognitive , 219–254. , 144 , , 2 127–131. , 16 193–206. , 114–126. , European , 4 , , ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE aia . rihr,L,Bcio . izlti G. Rizzolatti, & G., Buccino, L., Craighero, L., Fadiga, uot . k,B,&Shaet,A 19) Selective (1999). A. Schiavetto, & B., Ska, C., Dumont, uot . k,B 20) atmm recognition Pantomime (2000). B. Ska, & C., Dumont, eRni . ot,F,&Ncel,P (1980). P. Nichelli, & F., Motti, E., Renzi, De eRni . ucel,F 18) dainlapraxia. Ideational (1988). F. Lucchelli, & E., Renzi, De S. Sala, Della & G., Boscolo, C., Marchetti, R., Cubelli, rwod .R,&Grhat,P .(06.Methods (2006). H. P. Garthwaite, & R., J. Crawford, Testing (2005). H. P. Garthwaite, & R., J. Crawford, ho .L,&Mri,A 19) otclregions Cortical (1999). A. Martin, & L., L. Chao, alsm,G . atgrn,C,&Giot,G. Gainotti, & C., Caltagirone, A., G. Carlesimo, G. Miceli, & E., Capitani, R., Capasso, A., Caramazza, afra . ezdn,G,Dei . oao . & F., Zonato, F., Dieci, G., Vezzadini, P., Caffarra, ubu,L . eaot,T,&Shat,M F. M. Schwartz, & T., Veramonti, J., L. Buxbaum, Klatzky, & F., M. Schwartz, A., Sirigu, J., L. Buxbaum, 20) pehlseigseiclymdltsthe modulates specifically listening Speech (2002). mareto rniiegsue:A nsa aeof case apraxia. unusual An gestures: transitive of impairment mareti lhie’ disease. Alzheimer’s Cognition in impairment mttn etrs uniaieapoc oideo- apraxia. to motor approach quantitative A gestures: Imitating Brain limb of model apraxia. a Testing action: in Cognition (2000). 318–331. 25–35. ftsigfradfii nsnl aestudies: case Carlo Monte single by in power deficit statistical simulation. a of for Evaluation testing of dissociations. and for simulations tests Carlo in Monte revised using Evaluation dissociations alternatives neuropsychology: of and in studies impairments single-case suspected for soitdwt eciig aig n knowing and colours. naming, about perceiving, with associated nlsso ontv impairment. Battery: cognitive Deterioration Neurology of qualitative Mental analyses and reliability diagnostic data, The Normative (1996). del- trace the of hypothesis. test etion A in aphasia: performance Broca’s comprehension agrammatic of Patterns (2005). enr,A 20) oie adSrigTest: Neuropsychology data. Experimental Sorting Card Modified Normative (2004). A. Venneri, narxa nwn wa o”btnt“how.” not but for” “what Neurocase Knowing apraxia: knowledge tool in manipulation and Function (2000). 1113. apraxia. ideomotor posture in hand of representations Cognitive (2003). R. CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION , 111 Neurocase ri n Cognition and Brain , , , 1173–1185. , 6 36 43 83–97. , ontv Neuropsychology Cognitive 1996. , 177–181. , ora fCgiieNeuroscience Cognitive of Journal rhvso Neurology of Archives , ri n Language and Brain 5 447–458. , ora fCiia and Clinical of Journal Neuropsychologia , , 44 26 Neuropsychology 144–165. , 246–250. , , 37 , , 23 94 , 6–10. , 877–904. , ri and Brain 41 43–53. , European 1091– , 809 , , 19 11 , , Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ogs .R,Sat . atro,K 19) “What” (1999). K. Patterson, & J., Spatt, R., J. Hodges, ebg .B,Ga,M,&Kee,M 20) h role The (2006). M. Kiefer, & M., Graf, B., H. Helbig, F., Binkofski, M., Weyers, J., Schmitt, U., Halsband, ogs .R,Bza,S,Lmo ap,M A., M. Ralph, Lambon S., Bozeat, R., J. Hodges, rewl,A .(90.Snoyfebc mechan- feedback Sensory (1970). G. A. Greenwald, The (1997). S. Hagmann, & G., Goldenberg, ivgoi .R,DlPse . Mascheroni, M., Pesce, Del R., A. Giovagnoli, als,V,&Lkf,G 20)Tebansconcepts: brain’s (2005).The G. Lakoff, & V., Gallese, als,V,&Glmn .(98.Mro ern and neurons Mirror (1998). A. Goldman, & V., Gallese, oas,L,Frai .F,Gseih . oz,S., Rozzi, B., Gesierich, F., P. Ferrari, L., Fogassi, G. Rizzolatti, & G., Pavesi, L., Fogassi, L., Fadiga, als,V,Fdg,L,Fgsi . izlti G. Rizzolatti, & L., Fogassi, L., Fadiga, From V., Gallese, simulation: Embodied (2005). V. Gallese, ER TAL. ET NEGRI 810 ntehmnbrain. Sciences of human Academy skills the problem-solving object in of mechanical dissociation and the knowledge for Evidence “how”: and xeietlBanResearch Brain recognition. Experimental object visual in representations action of on perspective A lesions: apraxia. premotor and parietal unilat- after eral acts motor pantomimed of imitation and Gru ulkoldei betue vdnefo seman- from dementia. Evidence tic use. object concep- in of role knowledge The tual (2000). J. Spatt, & K., Patterson, 77 oteie-oo mechanism. reference ideo-motor special the With to control: performance in isms visuo-imitative of study apraxia. A gestures: meaningless of 19) ri aigts:Nraievle from controls. Sciences Neurological values E. Normative normal Capitani, test: 287 & making M., Trail Laiacona, (1996). M., Simoncelli, S., h oeo h esr-oo ytmi conceptual in system sensory-motor knowledge. the of role The h iuainter fmn reading. mind Sciences of Cognitive theory simulation the rmato raiaint neto understand- lobe: intention Parietal ing. to (2005). organization G. action Rizzolatti, From & F., study. Chersi, stimulation magnetic Neurophysiology observation: A action during facilitation Motor (1995). 19) cinrcgiini h rmtrcortex. premotor the Brain in recognition Action (1996). Sciences Cognitive the experience. and phenomenal to neurons xiaiiyo ogemsls M study. TMS A muscles: Neuroscience of Journal tongue European of excitability 73–99. , tnr . rud .J 20) Recognition (2001). J. H. Freund, & G., ¨tzner, Science , 119 ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE Neuropsychologia Neuropsychologia 593–609. , , ontv Neuropsychology Cognitive 308 Brain , 662–667. , 73 , , 2 2608–2611. , , , 493–501. , USA 123 17 305–309. , rceig fteNational the of Proceedings 1913–1925. , , , , , 39 35 96 4 23–48. , , 200–216. , 333–341. , 9444–9448. , 174 h tla ora of Journal Italian The scooia Review Psychological , 15 221–228. , 399–402. , , Phenomenology 22 ora of Journal 455–479. , rnsin Trends , ad,F,KenrFsa,G,&PsulLoe A. Pascual-Leone, & G., Kleiner-Fisman, F., Maeda, (1996). R. Bleser, De & K., Willmes, C. Luzzatti, ao,B . aaaz,A (2007). A. Caramazza, & Z., B. Mahon, orchestra- The (2005). A. Caramazza, & Z., B. Mahon, [Apraxia]. Apraxie (1920). H. Liepmann, & P., D. Shankweiler, S., F. Cooper, M., A. Liberman, (1992). E. K. Patterson, & D., Howard, atn . ho .L 20) eatcmmr and memory Semantic (2001). L. L. Chao, & A., Martin, con- object of representation The (2007). A. Martin, Rumiati, A., G. Negri, S., Milleville, Z., B. Mahon, (1997). T. Shallice, & C., Piccini, R., Lauro-Grotto, (2003). K. Patterson, & M., Brett, L., M. Kellenbach, of basis neural The (2004). H. S. Johnson-Frey, atn . nelie,L . ab,J .(2000). V. J. Haxby, & G., L. Ungerleider, A., Martin, cin:Seict fteefc n oeof role and effect the hand of orientation. observing observer’s Specificity while facilitation actions: Motor Italiana (2002). Versione Version]. Italian Speciali. Organizzazioni Test: (AAT): Firenze: Test Aphasia Aphasie [Aachener Aachener ino h esr-oo ytm:Cusfrom Clues systems: 480–494. sensory-motor the neuropsychology. of tion 1329–1335. the of Perception code. speech (1967). M. Studdert-Kennedy, eatnMedizin Gesamten erbooy(ontv Neuroscience) (Cognitive Neurobiology processes. and Structure brain: the 25–45. brain. the (2007). in cepts A. represen- Martin, stream. ventral object & the in shape tations A., properties Caramazza, Action-related I., R. submitted Manuscript system. content: motor publication. conceptual the for of in ghost grounding The the and simulation dementia. tool Cortex semantic in in operations Modality-specific action and 20–46. manipulability import- representation. of The functions: than ance louder speak Actions 71–78. humans. in use tool Co. Test Test Valley Trees Thames Palm and nM .Gzaia(Ed.), sciences Gazzaniga sensory objects. S. of M. The representations In brain: semantic of the model motor and specificity Category , abig,M:TeMTPress. MIT The MA: Cambridge, . 33 593–622. , scooia Review Psychological ora fCgiieNeuroscience Cognitive of Journal , nulRve fPsychology of Review Annual ontv Neuropsychology Cognitive 1 516–543. , rnsi ontv Sciences Cognitive in Trends ora fNeurophysiology of Journal uyS.Emns UK: Edmunds, St. Bury . h e ontv neuro- cognitive new The Neuron , urn pno in Opinion Current 74 , , 11 431–461. , 55 renseder Ergebnisse Sensory-motor Pyramids The 194–201. , 507–520. , , , , , , 22 58 15 87 8 / , , , , , Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 izlti . oas,L,&Glee .(2001). V. Gallese, & L., Fogassi, G., Rizzolatti, er,G .L,Lnrel,A,Ggi .L,& L., G. Gigli, A., Lunardelli, L., A. G. Negri, www.mricro.com software: MRIcro izlti . rihr,L 20) h mirror-neuron The (2004). L. Craighero, & G., Rizzolatti, (1964). A. Rey, Poizner, & C., K. Anderson, C., Ochipa, Z., S. Rapcsak, of analysis and assessment The (1971). C. R. Oldfield, (1989). M. K. Heilman, & G., J. L. Rothi, C., Ochipa, rn,W 19) ecpinadato planning. action and Pulvermu Perception (1997). W. Prinz, (1905). A. Pick, oa,M,Rti .J . nesn .M,Crucian, M., J. Anderson, G., J. L. Rothi, M., Mozaz, (1998). J. Pellat, & A., Charnallet, O., Moreaud, otmr,N,&Ymdr,A 19) aeo idea- of case A (1994). A. Yamadori, & N., Montomura, nesadn n mtto faction. of the imitation Neuroscience Reviews and underlying understanding mechanisms Neurophysiological n cuaeojc use. object accurate knowledge and semantic Degraded (2007). I. R. Rumiati, lnclea npyhlg..Prs Presses Paris: system. psychology.]. in France. de Universitaires exam clinical production action the of system. impairment selective a Evidence apraxia: for ideomotor Progressive (1995). H. 6 inventory. Edinburgh The Neuropsychologia handedness: use. Neurology and of selection Annals tool in deficit A apraxia: Ideational agaeadaction. and language Psychology Cognitive of Journal European Deuticke. Germany: , complexes.] psychopathological symptom of symptomatology in role manifestations: Their related and apraxia motor of der [Studies in Bedeutung Psychopatholo Symptomatologie Ihre Erscheinungen: Nahestehende erpyhlgclSociety Neuropsychological intransitive and knowl- pantomimes Postural gestures. and (2002). transitive M. of K. edge Heilman, & P., G. memory. semantic and Neuropsychologia use object the of between study relations A manipulation: without Identification raino betpantomime. object pres- of and ervation use object of impairment with apraxia tional 576–582. , le,F 20) ri ehnsslinking mechanisms Brain (2005). F. ¨ller, nulRve fNeuroscience of Review Annual ri n Cognition and Brain tde u Studien ora fteInternational the of Journal ’xmnciiu npsychologie en clinique L’examen , , 9 36 97–113. , , 1295–1301. , , 25 ¨ 2 e ooiceArxeudihre und Apraxie Motorische ber aueRvesNeuroscience Reviews Nature 190–193. , 661–670. , , Cortex 8 958–962. , ice Symptomenkomplexe. gischer , 27 Cortex , 213–236. , 43 376–388. , , , 27 30 , 169–192. , 167–170. , 9 129–154. , Nature [The , ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE arntn .K,&Jms .(1991). M. James, & K., E. Warrington, arntn .K (1996). K. E. Warrington, iin,P,&Suci .(99.Teefc fmove- of effect The (1989). N. Stucchi, & P., Viviani, esr,A,Cnsa . ka,M,&Rmai .I. R. Rumiati, & M., Ukmar, N., Canessa, A., Tessari, pnlr . onn,G 18) Standardizzazione (1987). G. Tognoni, & H., Spinnler, similarity- The (2003). W. L. Barsalou, & K., Simmons, hfrr . ry,J .(90.Aprn oinof motion Apparent (1990). J. J. Freyd, & M., Shiffrar, cwrz .F,Mngmr,M . Fitzpatrick- W., M. Montgomery, F., M. Schwartz, uit,R . aii . oao . hlie T. Shallice, & L., Vorano, S., Zanini, I., R. Rumiati, oh,L .G,Ohp,C,&Himn .M (1991). M. K. Heilman, & C., Ochipa, G., J. L. Rothi, oh,L .G,Mc,L,&Himn .M (1986). M. K. Heilman, & L., Mack, G., J. L. Rothi, E. Capitani, & M., Laiacona, Motor C., Valentina, C., (2005). Rosci, M. D. Wolpert, & G., Rizzolatti, oe K scooyPress. Psychology UK: Hove, betadSaePreto Battery. Company. Perception Test Valley Thames Space UK: Edmunds, and Object in ndnmcdisplays. dynamic illu- in Psychophysics Geometric perception: sions form on velocity ment 1111–1126. up.8 1–20. 8, suppl. oto fmlil otsi imitation. in routes multiple strategic of a control for evidence Neuropsychological (2007). 451–486. tnadzto n aiainneuropsychological [Italian tests.] validation neuropsicologici. and test di standardization italiana taratura e of theories deficits. Reconciling conceptual principle: in-topography h ua body. human the 863–892. ae,N .(95.Aayi fadsre of disorder & a B., of H. Analysis action. (1995). Coslett, everyday H. C., N. Ochipa, Mayer, J., E. DeSalme, ecto otninscheduling. contention selective a as of Neuropsychology apraxia ideational of deficit form A (2001). ontv Neuropsychology praxis. Cognitive limb of model neuropsychological cognitive A 625. ersrey n Psychiatry and agnosia. Neurosurgery, Pantomime objects. manipulable for Cognition and impairment Brain disproportion- naming a to ate associated not is Apraxia (2003). systems. CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION tla ora fNuooia Sciences Neurological of Journal Italian urn pno nNeurobiology in Opinion Current , 46 , 266–274. , 18 scooia Science Psychological 617–642. , ontv Neuropsychology Cognitive , ontv Neuropsychology Cognitive 53 412–415. , , h adnmmr test memory Camden The ora fNeurology, of Journal 8 , 443–458. , 49 451–454. , ecpinand Perception , 1 257–264. , Brain , h Visual The 15 Cognitive uySt Bury 623– , , , 811 , 130 , 20 12 6 . , , , ,

812 ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE Z.E. Z.A. T.S. T.O. S.T. S.V. S.O. S.C. S.R. R.O. P.N. P.O. P.I. P.T. P.E. M.E. M.Z. M.A. G.O. F.S. F.U. F.G. F.L. D.R. D.U. D.P. D.M. C.I. C.E. C.S. C.A. B.R. B.O. B.E. B.L. Age B.A. Sex A.N. initials Patient 1 Part eut ftenuoscooia vlainfralpatients all for evaluation neuropsychological the of Results 01 34 04 73 62 7pu ..4 4 p.u. 3 4 5 p.u. 3 4 5 n.a. 4 4 17 n.a. 3 4 4 n.a. 20 4 20 6 3 4 5 2 16 2 4 2 20 19 5 17 26 5 8 3 4 4 19 2 5 3 18 18 3 20 19 31 13 4 18 5 4 2 13 29 3 4 20 4 n.a. 2 37 25 5 17 20 5 16 n.a. n.a. 17 5 16 18 3 4 16 0 4 4 32 4 n.a. 4 19 27 n.a. 4 n.a. 18 24 18 48 17 n.a. 20 4 16 18 60 6 – 2 3 n.a. 45 – 20 0 5 n.a. 4 40 20 22 5 18 5 19 5 n.a. 58 21 n.a. 20 26 10 0 4 5 n.a. 15 – 47 30 n.a. 6 n.a. n.a. – 4 18 114 21 – 23 n.a. 5 4 4 n.a. 20 1 18 16 43 – 3 67 n.a. n.a. n.a. 3 20 15 n.a. n.a. 25 – 4 n.a. n.a. 39 28 2 52 44 7 4 n.a. 18 20 19 n.a. 27 3 3 47 – 59 – 3 n.a. 14 73 20 n.a. 19 34 2 89 50 5 29 49 n.a. 19 19 97 51 10 4 – n.a. 62 n.a. 5 4 56 5 15 n.a. 29 – 29 3 21 4 149 14 102 20 60 115 24 5 49 4 51 17 – n.a. 37 20 14 20 n.a. 30 4 n.a. 55 100 15 147 5 14 4 n.a. n.a. 70 2 57 13 3 – 6 58 – 13 n.a. 110 11 83 51 59 n.a. 34 n.a. n.a. 55 18 110 3 3 53 n.a. n.a. 5 39 4 33 29 20 14 60 100 119 11 6 20 5 50 57 2 4 2 n.a. 88 – 148 58 20 100 96 16 n.a. n.a. 11 35 p.u. – 100 13 69 3 109 25 n.a. 55 n.a. 14 2 6 – 141 n.a. 20 16 131 100 120 13 8 54 4 24 75 10 2 – 31 60 18 20 n.a. 85 n.a. 3 12 43 100 – 19 13 6 5 n.a. 100 20 65 1 84 2 6 n.a. – 18 123 8 20 14 100 69 n.a. n.a. n.a. 54 125 11 2 18 n.a. 68 n.a. 17 12 100 36 20 82 131 n.a. 14 22 83 15 58 19 15 1 65 88 n.a. 1 19 1 n.a. – 51 – n.a. 21 13 51 – 15 n.a. 100 133 1 20 n.a. 5 63 40 4 14 0 19 n.a. n.a. 100 142 F 18 3 n.a. 66 10 108 12 n.a. n.a. n.a. – n.a. 21 100 15 13 M 2 67 66 – 12 13 14 83 11 n.a. 5 14 3 41 M 2 63 65 48 – n.a. n.a. n.a. – n.a. 14 n.a. 33 8 94 50 M 2 59 67 n.a. n.a. n.a. 100 5 0 0 M 14 1 n.a. n.a. 70 51 47 n.a. n.a. 52 100 – n.a. 5 85 82 n.a. F 2 1 n.a. 60 92 100 – 12 14 60 8 69 M n.a. 109 33 n.a. 49 – 1 n.a. n.a. 140 8 100 80 – F n.a. 8 60 62 60 2 n.a. 8 63 F 14 n.a. 67 60 108 – n.a. 14 2 4 n.a. 8 50 – F 1 12 120 54 n.a. 14 53 100 65 100 F 2 n.a. 24 14 62 n.a. 66 78 – 14 F n.a. 39 n.a. 13 68 – 2 43 100 F 13 100 n.a. n.a. 13 63 4 100 134 60 n.a. F 13 1 55 25 48 51 9 100 90 F 14 81 130 n.a. 65 15 72 M -83 60 114 2 14 18 68 78 148 M 1 100 23 14 13 12 8 55 M 1 83 53 27 0 F 14 100 62 71 1 58 15 F 14 5 50 2 100 46 5 61 M 14 100 1 83 61 5 M 55 2 70 F 8 100 72 3 73 M 5 42 3 68 M 100 2 12 F 8 70 6 F 61 11 2 M 76 2 13 M 8 58 M 3 58 M 78 13 M 65 11 M 68 M 70 48 M M F

Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 Education (years) otonset post mnh)OdedIAIA IMA Oldfield (months) Testing token AAT PEDXA APPENDIX AAT rep write AAT AAT read name AAT AAT oc AAT wc Raven’s CPM VOSP screen VOSP o.d. Span fwd

Span w Corsi bwd ER TAL. ET NEGRI

813 ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE ..na 9na ..na 025na ..na ..0 3 n.a. 24 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5 3 2 6 10 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 49 47 n.a. n.a. S.T. S.V. ..na 24 1 7 4118 1 24 5 2 8 173 215 42 52 n.a. S.O. ..na 6na ..na ..na ..2 17 26 23 n.a. n.a. 29 30 8 n.a. 41 9 n.a. 5 38 9 40 p.u. 30 p.u. 3 3 n.a. 5 n.a. 6 3 n.a. p.u. n.a. n.a. p.u. p.u. n.a. p.u. 197 p.u. n.a. p.u. 76 52 198 46 n.a. n.a. 51 n.a. n.a. n.a. S.C. S.R. R.O. P.N. ..na 8na ..na ..na ..na 2 n.a. 44 n.a. 11 n.a. 37 n.a. 12 2 3 5 n.a. 9 50 n.a. 80 n.a. 30 n.a. 51 48 n.a. n.a. P.O. P.I. ..na 021pu ..6na ..2 28 1 21 n.a. n.a. 6 p.u. p.u. 211 50 n.a. P.T. ..na 13 1 8 ..na ..na ..na 29 30 45 n.a. 20 14 n.a. n.a. n.a. 50 n.a. n.a. 7 n.a. n.a. 3 11 n.a. 10 2 4 69 n.a. 182 235 217 86 166 35 238 n.a. 152 51 n.a. 51 n.a. n.a. P.E. M.E. M.Z. ..na 23 4 1 0na ..3 29 8 38 n.a. n.a. 10 110 142 32 52 n.a. M.A. ..na 97 7 9 ..343 27 6 30 4 3 n.a. 292 371 79 49 n.a. G.O. ..na 17 2 4 ..41 5025 0 15 15 4 n.a. 246 324 78 51 n.a. F.S. ..na 04 2 31 ..na 51 31 10 45 n.a. n.a. 12 83 129 46 50 n.a. F.U. ..na 215pu ..na 5140 1 25 3 2 n.a. p.u. p.u. 125 52 n.a. F.G. ..na 1na ..na ..61pu ..pu 921 44 19 5 p.u. 45 p.u. 10 p.u. 4 1 n.a. 6 101 n.a. 142 41 n.a. n.a. 52 n.a. n.a. 51 n.a. F.L. D.R. ..na 07 2 5 02 34 3 25 10 1 9 453 525 72 50 n.a. D.U. ..na ..5 6 0 0na ..2 45 4 22 n.a. n.a. 10 309 360 51 n.a. n.a. D.P. ..na 0125038na 5428 4 25 3 6 n.a. 388 530 142 50 n.a. D.M. ..na 49 ..pu ..pu 7226 2 17 p.u. p.u. 6 p.u. p.u. 90 44 n.a. C.I. ..4 ..pu ..pu ..452 27 7 25 5 4 n.a. p.u. p.u. p.u. n.a. 49 C.E. ..na 1304010na 5630 6 35 2 6 n.a. 160 460 300 51 n.a. C.S. ..na 85 ..pu ..pu ..na ..na ..0 43 8 n.a. n.a. 37 n.a. 1 n.a. p.u. 3 p.u. 9 p.u. 318 p.u. 388 p.u. 70 50 51 48 n.a. n.a. C.A. B.R. ..na 217pu ..1 9427 4 29 2 6 13 p.u. p.u. 197 52 n.a. B.O. ..na 823pu ..7na ..1 38 2 18 n.a. n.a. 7 p.u. p.u. 203 48 n.a. B.E. ..na 0pu ..pu ..64pu ..pu 57 15 29 8 p.u. p.u. 27 p.u. n.a. 4 n.a. 6 3 n.a. 294 407 p.u. 113 p.u. p.u. 49 50 n.a. n.a. B.L. B.A. ..na 03 33 ..563 26 6 35 6 5 n.a. 30 63 33 50 n.a. A.N. INITIALS 2 Part words P&P

Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 pictures P&P TMT A TMT B TMT - WEIGL B-A WCST N.cat WCST esRYimm. REY pers REY del. REY rec. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 2na 29 n.a. 32 6na ..L21,22,41,42 L 28 n.a. n.a. 32 n.a. 46 6na 29 n.a. 46 2na 27 n.a. 32 6na 28 n.a. 46 2na 30 n.a. 32 2na 27 n.a. 32 2na 25 n.a. 32 2na 29 n.a. 32 6na 19 n.a. 46 6na 20 n.a. 46 6na 27 n.a. 46 62 27 24 46 2na 26 n.a. 32 2na 29 n.a. 32 2na 21 n.a. 32 2na 27 n.a. 32 6na 27 n.a. 46 2na 26 n.a. 32 6na 29 n.a. 46 2na 28 n.a. 32 2na 30 n.a. 32 WARR. ae aigHemisph naming faces / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 0L2,3,4,38,47,48 21,22,37,38,39,41,48 20,41 L L L 30 30 30 0R2,40,41,42 R 30 0LSubcortical 3,6,7,40 L 20,21,22,37,39,41,42 R 30 R 30 30 0L20,21,22,37,38 7,19,39,40 L L 30 30 0RSubcortical R 30 0L22,43,48 scan (no lenticularis nucleus L 48 L 30 L 30 30 0R6,44,45,46,48 R 30 0LBslganglia Basal L 30 0L10,45,46,47,48 L 30 0L2,3,4,5,6,7,17,18,19,20, L 20 0Lifro aitllobe parietal inferior L 20 0L2,3,4,6,8,9,10,11,20,21, 42,48 L R 30 30 0L48 L 30 0R48 R 30 0L7,18,19,21,22,37,39,40,41 L 30 0R48 R 30 0R2,3,20,21,22,36,37,38,39, R 30 0R6,44,48 R 30 0L20,21,22,37,38,39,42,48 11,38,39,44,45,47,48 L R 30 30 0L48 L 30 0L43,48 L 30 0L17,18,19,21,22,23,37,39, 11 L L 30 30 niaeBomn Areas Brodmann indicate Numbers Lesion of Description available) 21,23,37,39,40,41 n cnavailable) scan (no 43,44,45,46,47,48 38,39,40,41,42, 22,37, 40,41,42,43,47,48 40,41 ( otne overleaf Continued

) CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION

814 ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE ..na 05 1 5 ..57pu ..pu 3pu 6,22,40,41,42,44,45,47,48 L p.u. 30 13 8 p.u. p.u. 43 p.u. 2 7 3 5 5 n.a. 151 354 213 410 62 56 52 50 n.a. n.a. Z.E. Z.A. ..na 16 0 3 0603 44 7 33 0 6 10 238 300 62 51 n.a. T.S. ..5 717pu ..1 36na ..30 n.a. n.a. 6 43 7 3 11 p.u. p.u. 197 47 50 T.O. Note: INITIALS Continued A Appendix A token AAT IA betadSaePreto atr Wrigo ae,19) OPscreen VOSP 1991). James, & (Warrington battery Perception Space and Object oc ii pnbcwr;Corsi backward; span digit ¼ F ¼ ¼ rlcmrhnin A wc AAT comprehension; oral dainlArxa(eRni&Lchli 98;AAT 1988); Lucchelli, & Renzi (De Apraxia Ideational eae M female. ¼ words P&P oe uts;ATrep AAT subtest; token

¼ Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ae brvain sdi h erpyhlgclassmn:Oldfield assessment: neuropsychological the in used Abbreviations male. pictures P&P ¼ os et pta hr-emmmr Sine onn,18) p.u. 1987); Tognoni, & (Spinnler memory short-term spatial test, Corsi TMT A ¼ rte opeeso;RvnsCM ae oordProgressi Coloured Raven CPM: Raven’s comprehension; written ¼ TMT eeiin A writ AAT repetition; B TMT - WEIGL B-A ¼ ¼ acee pai et tla om Lzat,Willmes (Luzzatti, norms Italian Test, Aphasie Aaachener rte agae A read AAT language; written WCST N.cat WCST ¼ esRYimm. REY pers cenn ak OPo.d. VOSP task; screening ¼ ¼ lfil 17) IMA (1971); Oldfield hree eso fteraigts ih3 tm;ATname AAT items; 30 with task reading the of version shortened REY del. eMtie Creio atgrn,&Giot,19) VOSP 1996); Gainotti, & Caltagirone, (Carlesimo, Matrices ve ¼ ain nbet opeetetask. the complete to unable patient ¼ REY rec. / / betdcso ak pnfwd Span task; decision object 2na 29 n.a. 32 6na 29 n.a. 46 ¼ WARR. ae aigHemisph naming faces IdeomotorApraxia(DeRenzi,Motti,&Nichelli,1980); eBee.Frne Organi Firenze, Bleser. De , / / / 0RSubcortical R 30 0R47,48 R 30 0R6,20,21,22,37,38,39,41, R 30 ¼ digitspanforward;Spanbwd niaeBomn Areas Brodmann indicate Numbers Lesion of Description zzoiSeil,1996); Speciali, zzazioni 42,43,44,45,48 ¼ aig AAT naming; ¼ Visual

¼ ER TAL. ET NEGRI Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 .Gn1.Mth2.Toothbrush 29. racket Tennis 28. Spoon 27. Screwdriver 25. Scissors 24. Match 19. Spanner Paintbrush 26. 20. Lipstick Saw 18. Razor 23. bulb 22. Pen Light 21. 17. squeezer Lemon 16. Hammer 10. Ladle 15. Gun 9. Knife 14. Glass 8. Fork 7. Eraser Key 6. 13. Iron Jug 11. 12. Duster 5. Comb 4. mug Coffee 3. Cigarette 2. Bottle 1. ito h xeietlsiuii lhbtclorder alphabetical in stimuli experimental the of List PEDXB APPENDIX ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE CINADOJC EONTO NAPRAXIA IN RECOGNITION OBJECT AND ACTION 815 Downloaded By: [Harvard College] At: 11:45 14 January 2008 ER TAL. ET NEGRI agtiesaei aia letters. capital in are items Target 816 ito itatr ntemlil-hietasks multiple-choice the in distractors of List sn ihe ihigacnl TIIGAMATCH A STRIKING BOTTLE A FORK FROM A POURING WITH EATING scissors with TENNIS Cutting PLAYING hair Combing mug coffee a from spoon CLOTH Drinking a A with WITH Eating WINDOW hair CLEANING Drying mug Knitting coffee RAZOR BULB a A LIGHT from candle WITH A Sawing Drinking a SHAVING TURNING coffee Lighting of carafe cup a a from KNIFE Drinking Pouring A WITH CUTTING GLASS axe A an chisel FROM with a DRINKING Cutting Using sponge GUN a A with WITH dishes corkscrew SHOOTING Cleaning a razor with a bottle with a Shaving baseball Opening Playing SPOON whisk A a WITH SCISSORS with EATING WITH Stirring HAIR CUTTING COMBING chisel a Using KEY A teeth IRONING spoon TURNING Brushing a with KNIFE Eating pliers glass Using a from scissors Drinking with Drilling Cutting lighter HAMMERING a Using razor carafe a a with CLOTH LIPSTICK from screwdriver Shaving APPLYING Pouring a Spoon LADLE Turning A WITH STIRRING SAWING GLASS TEETH spray BRUSHING a Using BOTTLE Sawing orange tennis pasta RACKET an table Eating TENNIS Squeezing Playing ERASER WITH Candle handle spoon RUBBING door Vacuuming a scissors Whisk a with with Opening CIGARETTE Eating Cutting Lipstick makeup A Applying SMOKING Hairbrush whisk a Using Sewing SPANNER Hammering A TURNING screwdriver WALL a A Carafe Turning PAINTING hands RAZOR mortar Washing Screwdriver the Scissors in pestle file Vacuuming a nail Beating ORANGE a Carafe AN Using SQUEEZING Saw mug wood Coffee Planing spanner Paintbrush a sponge Turning keyboard with SCREWDRIVER carafe Writing A a bat Screwdriver TURNING from tennis Pouring Scissors GUN Table Carafe hairdryer Using pencil with Drawing eyeshadow Glass Applying CARAFE A Lighter LADLE FROM Carafe POURING Hammer CIGARETTE tap COMB a MUG CARAFE Turning COFFEE MUG COFFEE FROM Razor DRINKING mug spanner BULB Coffee a LIGHT KEY Turning PAINTBRUSH SPANNER Knitting Eraser polish Lipstick nail Scissors Applying PEN bulb WITH Light Comb WRITING recognition Pantomime SQUEEZER cleaner HAMMER LEMON Vacuum Scissors Scissors Hammer SCREWDRIVER FORK bat Baseball Pen MATCHSTICK bulb Spoon Light TOOTHBRUSH Screwdriver Spoon Carafe carafe Spoon SCISSORS Razor SPOON Saw Eraser Hammer Pen Razor Comb IRON mug Coffee Spanner SAW Spanner Saw Eraser Hammer mug Coffee Spanner Spoon Screwdriver Pen LIPSTICK PEN recognition Object ONTV ERPYHLG,20,2 (8) 24 2007, NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, COGNITIVE PEDXC APPENDIX