Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage. The technical reasoning model
Unusual use of objects after unilateral brain damage. The technical reasoning model
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cortex.2008.06.013
复制
发表时间：
2009-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Le Gall, Didier
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Osiurak, Francois;Jarry, Christophe;Le Gall, Didier
已经提出，手势印记、概念知识和/或从结构推断功能的能力可以支持对象使用。本文提出了另一种观点，这是基于这样的想法，即对象的使用只需要的能力，推理对象提供的技术手段。技术手段是抽象的原则，不与任何对象表示相联系（例如，切割涉及致密和可渗透材料之间的对立）。技术推理模型预测，在任何需要使用对象的情况下（以常规方式或不以常规方式），无法执行技术推理会损害性能。对20名左脑损伤（LBD）患者、11名右脑损伤（RBD）患者和41名健康对照进行了实验测试，评估物体的常规使用（例如，用螺丝刀拧螺丝）、关于对象功能的概念知识、对象使用的哑剧和对象利用手势的识别。我们还设计了对象的异常使用测试文件，其要求对象的异常应用以实现通常应用的对象未被提供的目的（例如，用刀拧螺丝）。关键的发现是，只有LBD患者有更多的困难，不寻常的使用对象测试比对照组或RBD患者，他们的损害的严重程度与常规使用的对象。与测试评估的概念知识，以及与测试的对象使用和识别的对象利用手势的哑剧的相关性较弱。这些结果支持了技术推理模型，并质疑概念知识和手势痕迹在物体使用中的作用。由于技术推理模型还预测了两种不同的技术障碍，讨论的重点是这些障碍的存在，在不寻常的使用对象测试中获得的个人性能配置文件。(c)2008年由Elsevier Srl出版。
It has been suggested that gesture engrams, conceptual knowledge and/or the ability to infer function from structure can support object use. The present paper proposes an alternative view which is based upon the idea that object use requires solely the ability to reason about technical means provided by objects. Technical means are abstract principles which are not linked with any object representation (e.g., cutting involves the opposition between dense and permeable material). The technical reasoning model predicts that the inability to perform technical reasoning should impair performance in any Situation requiring the use of objects (in a conventional way or not). Twenty left brain-damaged (LBD) patients, 11 right brain-damaged (RBD) patients and 41 healthy controls were examined on experimental tests assessing the conventional use of objects (e.g., screwing a screw with a screwdriver), conceptual knowledge about object function, pantomime of object use and recognition of object utilization gestures, We also designed file Unusual Use of Objects Test, which demands unusual applications of objects to achieve a purpose for which the usually applied object is not provided (e.g., screwing a screw with a knife). The key findings are that only LBD patients have more difficulties on the Unusual Use of Objects Test than controls or RBD patients, and that the severity of their impairment is correlated with that on conventional use of objects. Correlations with tests assessing conceptual knowledge as well as with tests of pantomime of object use and recognition of object utilization gestures were weaker. These results support the technical reasoning model and question the role of conceptual knowledge and gesture engrams in object use. Since the technical reasoning model also predicts two distinct technical disorders, the discussion focuses on the existence of these disorders in regard to individual performance profiles obtained in the Unusual Use of Objects Test. (c) 2008 Published by Elsevier Srl.