Mapping Implied Body Actions in the Human Motor System
Open accessAbstract
The human visual system is highly tuned to perceive actual motion as well as to extrapolate dynamic information from static pictures of objects or creatures captured in the middle of motion. Processing of implied motion activates higher-order visual areas that are also involved in processing biological motion. Imagery and observation of actual movements performed by others engenders selective activation of motor and premotor areas that are part of a mirror-neuron system matching action observation and execution. By using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, we found that the mere observation of static snapshots of hands suggesting a pincer grip action induced an increase in corticospinal excitability as compared with observation of resting, relaxed hands, or hands suggesting a completed action. This facilitatory effect was specific for the muscle that would be activated during actual execution of the observed action. We found no changes in responsiveness of the tested muscles during observation of nonbiological entities with (e.g., waterfalls) or without (e.g., icefalls) implied motion. Thus, extrapolation of motion information concerning human actions induced a selective activation of the motor system. This indicates that overlapping motor regions are engaged in the visual analysis of physical and implied body actions. The absence of motor evoked potential modulation during observation of end posture stimuli may indicate that the observation–execution matching system is preferentially activated by implied, ongoing but not yet completed actions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Static images with implied motion activate both motor and visual areas.
“It has been demonstrated (by using both TMS and event related potentials) that static images with implied motion perception activate both motor and visual areas (Urgesi et al., 2006; Proverbio et al., 2009).”
From Corticomotor Excitability during Observation and Imagination of a Work of Art (2011) · cites this paper as Urgesi et al., 2006
The Abstract reports that static snapshots of hands implying a pincer grip increased corticospinal excitability, while the Introduction describes visual-area activation during implied-motion processing. But the motor effect was specific to the depicted action: the Abstract reports no comparable muscle response to nonbiological scenes such as waterfalls. The claim is therefore too broad if it applies motor activation to static images with implied motion generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTranscranial magnetic stimulation had been useful in elucidating the effects of observing still photographs on motor excitability.
“The technique had also been useful in elucidating the effects of observation of still photographs on motor excitability (Urgesi et al., 2006).”
From Corticomotor Excitability during Observation and Imagination of a Work of Art (2011) · cites this paper as Urgesi et al., 2006
Static images may be effective in eliciting putative MNS activity if the images contain implied movement.
“static images may be effective in eliciting putative MNS activity if images used contain implied movement (dynamic information within static images, or 'implicit motion'; Proverbio et al., 2009; Urgesi et al., 2006).”
From Is the Putative Mirror Neuron System Associated with Empathy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2021) · cites this paper as Urgesi et al., 2006
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 273
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Wasserman EM (1998) Risk and safety of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation: report and suggested guidelines from the International Workshop on the Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, June 5-7, 1996. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 108:1-16.
- Authors
- Urgesi, C., Moro, V., Candidi, M., & Aglioti, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Verona (IT)
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2006-07-26
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 30
- Pages
- 7942-7949
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- PMC
- PMC6674209
- OpenAlex
- W2086179145
- Cited by
- 273
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 20.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System (University of Udine) (submittedVersion)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Keywords
- implied motion, action observation, motor system, mirror neuron system, corticospinal excitability, pincer grip, motor evoked potentials, visual perception of motion, biological motion, motor imagery, transcranial magnetic stimulation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cerebral Cortex, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Female, Hand, Humans, Imagination, Male, Motion Perception, Movement, Evoked Potentials, Motor
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review