title: Tool characteristics in imagery of tool actions.
abstract: Are tool characteristics represented in imagined tool actions? In two experiments participants imagined and executed coloring rectangles with a thick and a thin pen. In Experiment 2, an additional execution condition without visual feedback of coloring allowed us to dissociate between the relevance of kinesthetic and visual feedback. Pen thickness influenced coloring durations in all conditions, indicating that characteristics of a simple tool are represented during imagery. Imagination was shorter than execution, indicating that imagination may be less detailed than execution. Execution without visual feedback was even shorter than imagination, indicating that vision is more important than kinesthesis for differences between imagination and execution, and that either imagining the movement, inhibiting movement execution or imagining the progress of the action is effortful during imagery. In conclusion, characteristics of simple tools are represented in imagined tool actions but the representation of tools' effects may not always be adequate.
authors: M2-Department for Medical Sciences and Management, Institute for Psychology, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Eduard Wallnöfer Zentrum 1, A-6060, Hall in Tirol, Austria, martina.rieger@umit.at.
authors: Martina
authors: M
authors: Rieger
authors: Cristina
authors: C
authors: Massen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D030141:Feedback, Psychological / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007092:Imagination / Q000502:physiology*; D007699:Kinesthesis / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D009043:Motor Activity / Q000502:physiology*; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
references: Behav Brain Res. 1989 Aug 1;34(1-2):35-42
references: 2765170
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2004 Jun;27(3):377-96; discussion 396-442
references: 15736871
references: Exp Brain Res. 2002 Apr;143(4):447-52
references: 11914790
references: Brain Cogn. 1989 Sep;11(1):87-97
references: 2789819
references: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Dec;22(1):67-75
references: 15561502
references: Cortex. 2007 Apr;43(3):301-7
references: 17533754
references: J Neural Eng. 2005 Sep;2(3):S313-9
references: 16135891
references: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005 Mar;22(3):457-69
references: 15722215
references: Brain Res Rev. 2009 May;60(2):306-26
references: 19167426
references: Am J Psychol. 1971 Dec;84(4):543-8
references: 5142064
references: Cereb Cortex. 2008 Oct;18(10):2382-90
references: 18296436
references: Behav Brain Res. 1996 May;77(1-2):45-52
references: 8762158
references: Cortex. 2007 Apr;43(3):350-8
references: 17533758
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2002 Apr;25(2):157-82; discussion 182-237
references: 12744144
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009 Oct;35(5):1458-71
references: 19803649
references: Cognition. 2011 Nov;121(2):163-75
references: 21821234
references: J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002 Mar;8(1):6-16
references: 12009178
references: Behav Brain Res. 1995 Dec 14;72(1-2):127-34
references: 8788865
references: J Sports Sci. 2002 Aug;20(8):607-13
references: 12190280
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Dec;34(6):1479-92
references: 19045987
references: Exp Brain Res. 2012 Apr;218(2):169-79
references: 22294026
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Nov;26(6):1655-65
references: 11185788
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;201(2):218.e1-9
references: 19481728
references: J Mot Behav. 2005 Jan;37(1):10-20
references: 15642689
references: Psychol Sci. 2009 Oct;20(10):1296-300
references: 19765236
references: PLoS One. 2009 Nov 11;4(11):e7793
references: 19907655
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012 Feb;38(1):80-9
references: 21928928