CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Aesthetic Perception and AnalysisAction Observation and SynchronizationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Corticomotor Excitability during Observation and Imagination of a Work of Art

Open access
Battaglia, Fortunato, Lisanby, Sarah H., Freedberg, David·2011·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00079PMC PMC3159953
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We examine the effects of the artistic representation - here exemplified by Michelangelo's Expulsion from Paradise - of an action on the motor system. Using single and paired- pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation we analyze corticomotor excitability during observation of an action in the painting, during imagery of the painting, and during observation of a photograph of the same pose. We also analyze the effects of observation of two further paintings, one showing the same muscles at rest, and in the other in a more overtly emotional context. Both observation of the Expulsion and of imagery of the painting increased cortical excitability. Neither the relaxed pose of Michelangelo's Creation nor the flexed posture in the highly emotional context of Bellini's Dead Christ increased cortical excitability. Observation of a photograph of the same extended pose did not increase cortical excitability either. Moreover, intracortical inhibition was reduced during imagery of the painting. Our results offer clear motor correlates of the relationship between the esthetic quality of a work and the perception of implied movement within it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00079

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

4 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

6 of 31 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Urgesi et al., 2006 source

      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 measured
    • cites Proverbio et al., 2009 source
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 3, resting motor threshold did not differ between rest and imagery of the painting.

    “RMT [F(1,18) = 3.2; p = 0.4), CSP [F(1,18) = 7.1; p = 0.09], and ICF [F(1,18) = 4.4; p = 0.2] were not different between rest and imagery of the painting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Imagery of a pictorial work of art modulates cortical excitability.

    “we show, for the first time that imagery of a pictorial work of art modulates cortical excitability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Observing a photograph of the same extended pose produced only a modest, non-significant increase in motor evoked potential amplitude.

    “On the contrary, observation the same pose induced only a modest, non-significant, increase in MEP amplitude [111.6% compared to REST; F (1, 18) = 27, p < 0.001].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Observing Michelangelo's Creation of Adam did not increase corticomotor excitability.

    “whereas the Creation of Adam and the Dead Christ with Angels did not have effect on corticomotor excitability (p > 0.05; Figure 2D).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 17
  • May combine two claims. 4

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Processing human motion at a conceptual level, such as during story comprehension, shows a similar pattern of brain activation.

    “and during processing of human motion at a conceptual level, such as during story comprehension (Deen and McCarthy, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Deen and McCarthy, 2010 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Stimulus novelty has a significant effect on esthetic perception and judgment.

    “Given that stimulus novelty has been shown to have a significant effect on esthetic perception and judgment (Oliva and Torralba, 2007; Kirk, 2008; Kirk et al., 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Oliva and Torralba, 2007 source
    • cites Kirk, 2008 source
    • cites Kirk et al., 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Transcranial 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).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Urgesi et al., 2006 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Different multimodal body representations in occipito-temporal cortex are engaged in a content-specific manner during imagery of human body parts.

    “With regard to imagery of human body parts, it is likely that different multimodal body representations in the occipito-temporal cortex are engaged in a content-specific manner (Ishai et al., 2000; O'Craven and Kanwisher, 2000; Grossman and Blake, 2001; Costantini et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ishai et al., 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites O'Craven and Kanwisher, 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Grossman and Blake, 2001 source

      Section 5.2 (page unavailable) reports that imagining biological motion activated posterior STS more strongly than imagining optic flow, supporting content-dependent engagement during imagery. But the paper studies imagined human activities, not imagery of individual body parts, and does not establish different multimodal body representations in occipito-temporal cortex. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Motor evoked potential amplitude reflects trans-synaptic excitability of cortico-spinal neurons and spinal motor neurons and provides information about the strength of cortico-spinal connections.

    “MEP amplitude reflects the trans-synaptic excitability of cortico-spinal neurons and spinal motor neurons, and thus provides information about the strength of cortico-spinal connections (Boroojerdi et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Boroojerdi et al., 2001 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Electromyographic activity was continuously monitored to ensure complete relaxation at rest or a constant level of activity during tonic contraction.

    “During the experiments EMG activity was continuously monitored by visual (oscilloscope) and auditory (speakers) feedback to ensure either complete relaxation at rest or a constant level of EMG activity during tonic contraction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The experimental protocol was approved by the local ethics committee.

    “The experimental protocol was approved by the local ethics committee (NYCPM).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Imagery training was terminated when the subject reached a vividness score of four without any extensor carpi radialis muscle contraction.

    “The training was terminated when the subject reached vividness score of four in absence of any ECR muscle contraction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Intracortical mechanisms for inhibition and facilitation in these muscles have been well characterized.

    “In addition, intracortical mechanisms for inhibition and facilitation in these muscles have been well characterized (Chen et al., 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chen et al., 1998 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Neurons in the polysensory zone have bimodal visual-tactile modalities and represent the space immediately surrounding the body through touch and vision.

    “Neurons in the poly sensory zone have bimodal, visual–tactile modalities and represent the space immediately surrounding the body through touch, and vision (Graziano et al., 2002b).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Graziano et al., 2002b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study was performed on one hemisphere, so it provides no information about the topographic specificity of motor responses to observation of a work of art.

    “Given that our study was performed on one hemisphere we do not have information regarding the topographic specificity of motor responses to observation of a work of art.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Imagery training was performed under visual electromyographic feedback to ensure complete target muscle relaxation.

    “This training protocol was performed under visual feedback of EMG recording of the right ECR muscle to ensure complete target muscle relaxation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All participants gave written informed consent and the experiments conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki.

    “All participants gave written informed consent and all experiments conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Motor evoked potential size increases during motor imagery.

    “While a number of authors have shown that MEP size increases during motor imagery (Fourkas et al., 2006; Stinear et al., 2006)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fourkas et al., 2006 source
    • cites Stinear et al., 2006 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Short-interval intracortical inhibition can be modulated in a spatially and temporally specific way during imagined motor performance.

    “previous studies (Abbruzzese et al., 1999; Stinear and Byblow, 2004) that have provided evidence that SICI can be modulated in a spatially and temporally specific way during imagined motor performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Abbruzzese et al., 1999 source
    • cites Stinear and Byblow, 2004 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Visual perception of static body parts engages the extrastriate body area.

    “Visual perception of static body parts engages the EBA (Downing et al., 2001)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Downing et al., 2001 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Observing emotionally charged images induces sensory-motor activation.

    “Recent neuroimaging studies (Kawabata and Zeki, 2004) have found that observation of emotionally charged images induces sensory–motor activation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kawabata and Zeki, 2004 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Transcranial magnetic stimulation parameters were tested according to published guidelines for TMS in clinical neurophysiology.

    “TMS parameters were tested according to published guidelines for the use of TMS in clinical neurophysiology (Rossini et al., 1999; Rothwell et al., 1999).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Rossini et al., 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Rothwell et al., 1999

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Observing a movement could also have minor effects on spinal excitability.

    “Given that observation of a movement could also have minor effects on spinal excitability (Baldissera et al., 2001)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Baldissera et al., 2001 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Ventral premotor cortex plays a critical role in understanding complete body postures.

    “while ventral premotor cortex plays a critical role in the understanding of complete body postures (Urgesi et al., 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Urgesi et al., 2004 source
20 of 20

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No empirical research had been done on the aspect of response in which viewers feel bodily engaged by movements represented in paintings.

    “but no empirical research has been done on this aspect of response (Vischer, 1872; Lipps, 1906; Merleau-Ponty, 1962).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No study had yet examined corticomotor excitability during observation of an action represented in a work of art.

    “But no study had yet been made of corticomotor excitability during the observation of an action represented in a work of art.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The action in Michelangelo's Expulsion is unequivocally represented and easily legible.

    “this action is unequivocally represented and easily legible.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Michelangelo clearly delineates the forearm muscles involved in extending the hand.

    “Michelangelo, with his habitual skill, clearly delineates the muscles of the forearm involved in the extension of the hand”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The effect of observing the painting on corticomotor excitability is a consequence of the artist's skill in giving an illusory impression of movement.

    “we assume that this effect, in the case of the painting, must be a consequence of the artist's skill in giving the illusory impression of movement.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the Expulsion the extensor carpi radialis muscle is activated, in the Creation it is at rest, and in Bellini's Dead Christ it is shown at rest in an overtly and highly emotional context.

    “In the Expulsion the ECR muscle is activated; in the Creation, it is at rest; in Bellini's Dead Christ, it is shown at rest in an overtly and highly emotional context.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The photograph used in Experiment 4 reproduced the same action as Adam's hand in the Expulsion.

    “Here we investigated corticomotor responses to observation of Adam's hand action in the painting of the Expulsion and a photograph of the same action (Figure 4A).”
7 of 7

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1,54) = 4.4, p = .01

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .01 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .041. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .041

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F(1,54) = 1.1, p = .2

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .2 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .299. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .299

  • p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: F (1, 54) = 4.8, p = .01

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .01 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .033. The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.

    Reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .033

3 of 3

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 54) = 4.8reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .033

    “F (1, 54) = 4.8, p = .01”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 54) = 1.1reported p = .2 · recomputed p = .299

    “F(1,54) = 1.1, p = .2”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 54) = 4.4reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .041

    “F(1,54) = 4.4, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 18) = 27reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F (1, 18) = 27, p < .001”

4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

  • Experiment 1 reports an impossible F-test p-value

    Major

    For F(1,18)=5.4, the reported p=0.1 is inconsistent with the F statistic. A value that large with 1 and 18 degrees of freedom would yield a p-value well below 0.05, not 0.1.

    Reported 0.1 · recomputed -17

  • Experiment 3 reports a nonsignificant p-value for a significant F statistic

    Major

    The paper reports F(1,18)=7.1 with p=0.09 for CSP. With 1 and 18 degrees of freedom, that F value corresponds to a p-value below 0.05, so the stated p-value is inconsistent with the test statistic.

    Reported 0.09 · recomputed -17

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

10 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Battaglia, F., Lisanby, S. H., & Freedberg, D.
Affiliations
  • New York College of Podiatric Medicine (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Battaglia, Fortunato
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2011
Volume
5
Pages
79-79
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnhum.2011.00079
PMC
PMC3159953
OpenAlex
W2030026603
Cited by
66
References
59
Citations by year
2025: 13 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
corticomotor excitability, action observation, motor imagery, art perception, intracortical inhibition, paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, emotional context, motor system

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.

Claims read under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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