ABSTRACT
OBJETIVOS: Assim como a imagética motora, o reconhecimento de partes do corpo aciona representações somatosensoriais específicas. Essas representações são ativadas implicitamente para comparar o corpo com o estímulo. No presente estudo, investigou-se a influência da informação proprioceptiva da postura no reconhecimento de partes do corpo (mãos) e propõe-se a utilização dessa tarefa na reabilitação de pacientes neurológicos. MATERIAIS E MÉTODOS: Dez voluntários destros participaram do experimento. A tarefa era reconhecer a lateralidade de figuras da mão apresentada, em várias perspectivas e em vários ângulos de orientação. Para a figura da mão direita, o voluntário pressionava a tecla direita e para a figura da mão esquerda, a tecla esquerda. Os voluntários realizavam duas sessões: uma com as mãos na postura prona e outra com as mãos na postura supina. RESULTADOS: Os tempos de reação manual (TRM) eram maiores para as vistas e orientações, nas quais é difícil realizar o movimento real, mostrando que durante a tarefa, existe um acionamento de representações motoras para comparar o corpo com o estímulo. Além disso, existe uma influência da postura do sujeito em vistas e ângulos específicos. CONCLUSÕES: Estes resultados mostram que representações motoras são ativadas para comparar o corpo com o estímulo e que a postura da mão influencia esta ressonância entre estímulo e parte do corpo.
OBJECTIVE: Recognition of body parts activates specific somatosensory representations in a way that is similar to motor imagery. These representations are implicitly activated to compare the body with the stimulus. In the present study, we investigate the influence of proprioceptive information relating to body posture on the recognition of body parts (hands). It proposes that this task could be used for rehabilitation of neurological patients. METHODS: Ten right-handed volunteers participated in this experiment. The task was to recognize the handedness of drawings of a hand that were presented in different perspectives and several orientations. For drawings of a right hand, the volunteers pressed the right key, and for drawings of a left hand, they pressed the left key. The volunteers underwent two sessions: one with their hands in a prone posture and the other with their hands in a supine posture. RESULTS: The manual reaction time was longer for perspectives and orientations for which the real movement was difficult to achieve. This showed that, during the task, motor representations were activated to compare the body with the stimulus. Furthermore, the subject's posture had an influence in relation to specific perspectives and orientations. CONCLUSIONS: These results showed that motor representations are activated to compare the body with the stimulus, and that the position of the hand influences this resonance between the stimulus and the body part.
ABSTRACT
Simple manual reaction time (MRT) to a visual target (S2) is shortened when a non-informative cue (S1) is flashed at the S2 location shortly before the onset of S2 (early facilitation). Afterwards, MRT to S2 appearing at the S1 location is lengthened (inhibition of return - IOR). Similar results have been obtained for saccadic reaction time (SRT). Moreover, when there is a temporal gap between offset of the fixation point (FP) and onset of a target (gap paradigm), SRT is shorter than SRT in an overlap paradigm (FP remains on). In the present study, we determined SRT to S2 (10º) after presenting S1 at the same eccentricity (10º) or at a parafoveal position (2º) in the same or in the opposite hemifield. In addition, we employed both gap and overlap paradigms. Twelve subjects were asked not to respond to S1 (2º or 10º) to the right or to the left of FP, but to respond by making a saccadic movement in response to S2. We obtained the following results: 1) a 40-ms gap effect, 2) an interaction between gap effect and IOR, 3) a 39-ms delay (IOR) when S2 appeared at the cued (S1) position, and 4) a smaller (17 ms) but significant inhibition when S1 occurred at 2º in the ipsilateral hemifield. Thus, a parafoveal (2º) S1 elicits an inhibition of SRT towards ipsilateral peripheral targets. Since an inhibition of the ipsilateral hemifield by a 1º eccentric cue has been reported to occur when manual responses are employed, we suggest that the postulated functional link between covert and overt orienting of attention is also valid for parafoveal cues.