title: What happens to the motor theory of perception when the motor system is damaged?
abstract: Motor theories of perception posit that motor information is necessary for successful recognition of actions. Perhaps the most well known of this class of proposals is the motor theory of speech perception, which argues that speech recognition is fundamentally a process of identifying the articulatory gestures (i.e. motor representations) that were used to produce the speech signal. Here we review neuropsychological evidence from patients with damage to the motor system, in the context of motor theories of perception applied to both manual actions and speech. Motor theories of perception predict that patients with motor impairments will have impairments for action recognition. Contrary to that prediction, the available neuropsychological evidence indicates that recognition can be spared despite profound impairments to production. These data falsify strong forms of the motor theory of perception, and frame new questions about the dynamical interactions that govern how information is exchanged between input and output systems.
authors.affiliation: Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, USA.
authors.forename: Alena
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Stasenko
authors.affiliation: Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, USA.
authors.forename: Frank E
authors.initials: FE
authors.lastname: Garcea
authors.affiliation: Meliora Hall, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0268, USA; Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, USA; Center for Language Sciences, University of Rochester, USA.
authors.forename: Bradford Z
authors.initials: BZ
authors.lastname: Mahon
keywords: apraxia; language comphrension; mirror neuron system; motor theory of perception; speech perception
references.citation: Brain Cogn. 1995 Mar;27(2):213-36
references.pmid: 7772334
references.citation: Nature. 1996 Nov 14;384(6605):159-61
references.pmid: 8906789
references.citation: Cognition. 2004 May-Jun;92(1-2):67-99
references.pmid: 15037127
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Jun;13(3):361-77
references.pmid: 17048719
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2009 Jul;21(7):1229-43
references.pmid: 19199415
references.citation: Cortex. 2012 Jul;48(7):805-25
references.pmid: 21621764
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2001 Sep;18(7):617-42
references.pmid: 20945230
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2007 Oct 9;17(19):1692-6
references.pmid: 17900904
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Mar;13(3):110-4
references.pmid: 19223222
references.citation: J Physiol Paris. 2008 Jan-May;102(1-3):71-9
references.pmid: 18472404
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:149-79
references.pmid: 14744213
references.citation: Cognition. 1985 Oct;21(1):1-36
references.pmid: 4075760
references.citation: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1986 Apr;49(4):451-4
references.pmid: 3701356
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2008 Mar 19;28(12):3030-41
references.pmid: 18354006
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1967 Nov;74(6):431-61
references.pmid: 4170865
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2008 Jan 8;18(1):R13-8
references.pmid: 18177704
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2005 May;22(3):480-94
references.pmid: 21038262
references.citation: J Physiol Paris. 2008 Jan-May;102(1-3):59-70
references.pmid: 18448316
references.citation: Science. 1971 Jan 22;171(3968):303-6
references.pmid: 5538846
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2008 Dec;107(3):179-84
references.pmid: 18976806
references.citation: Neurocase. 2011;17(2):178-87
references.pmid: 21207313
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2010 Jan;112(1):12-24
references.pmid: 19942271
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Mar;22(3):413-26
references.pmid: 19302003
references.citation: Trends Neurosci. 1998 May;21(5):188-94
references.pmid: 9610880
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007 May;8(5):393-402
references.pmid: 17431404
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Jun 1;6(6):242-247
references.pmid: 12039605
references.citation: Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Sep;2(9):661-70
references.pmid: 11533734
references.citation: Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Apr 29;7:120
references.pmid: 23641205
references.citation: Brain Lang. 1988 Jan;33(1):65-85
references.pmid: 2449262
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1981;19(1):1-15
references.pmid: 7231654
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 1977;15(3):371-83
references.pmid: 854156
references.citation: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004;27:169-92
references.pmid: 15217330
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychol. 2007 Dec;24(8):795-816
references.pmid: 18161497
references.citation: Eur J Neurosci. 2002 Jan;15(2):399-402
references.pmid: 11849307
references.citation: J Speech Hear Res. 1970 Sep;13(3):556-83
references.pmid: 5507115
references.citation: Aphasiology. 2012 Sep;26(9):1103-1118
references.pmid: 22942513
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1995 Jun;73(6):2608-11
references.pmid: 7666169
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2011 Dec;119(3):214-20
references.pmid: 21920592
references.citation: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Aug;48(4):884-96
references.pmid: 16378480
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 1992;91(1):176-80
references.pmid: 1301372
references.citation: Science. 1975 Oct 3;190(4209):69-72
references.pmid: 1166301