web stats
Track your comments!
[x]


If you registered, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Dan Peterson | September 3rd 2008 12:45 PM | 6 comments

 When was the last time you listened to a sporting event on the radio? If given a choice between watching the game on a big screen plasma in HD or turning on the AM radio, most of us would probably choose the visual sensation of television. But, for a moment, think about the active attention you need in order to listen to a radio broadcast and interpret the play-by-play announcer's descriptions. As you hear the words, your "mind's eye" paints the picture of the action so you can imagine the scene and situations. Your knowledge of the game, either from playing it or watching it for years helps you understand the narrative, the terms and the game's "lingo".

Now, imagine that you are listening to a broadcast about a sport you know nothing about. Hearing Bob Uecker or Vin Scully say, "With two out in the ninth, the bases are loaded and the Brewers' RBI leader has two strikes. The infield is in as the pitcher delivers. Its a hard grounder to third that he takes on the short hop and fires a bullet to first for the final out." If you have no baseball-specific knowledge, those sentences are meaningless. However, for those of us that have grown up with baseball, that description makes perfect sense and our mind's eye helped us picture the scene.

That last sentence about the "hard grounder" and the thrown "bullet" may have even triggered some unconscious physical movements by you as your brain interpreted those action phrases. That sensorimotor reaction is at the base of what is called "embodied cognition". Sian Beilock, associate professor of psychology and leader of the Human Performance Lab at the University of Chicago, defined the term this way: "In contrast to traditional views of the mind as an abstract information processor, recent work suggests that our representations of objects and events are grounded in action. That is, our knowledge is embodied, in the sense that it consists of sensorimotor information about potential interactions that objects or events may allow." She cites a more complete definition of the concept in Six Views of Embodied Cognition by Margaret Wilson. Another terrific overview of the concept is provided by science writer Drake Bennet of the Boston Globe in his article earlier this year, "Don't Just Stand There, Think".

In a study released yesterday, "Sports Experience Changes the Neural Processing of Action Language", Dr. Beilock's team continued their research into the link between our learned motor skills and our language comprehension about those motor skills. Since embodied cognition connects the body with our cognition, the sports domain provides a logical domain to study it.

Their initial look at this concept was in a 2006 study titled, "Expertise and its embodiment: Examining the impact of sensorimotor skill expertise on the representation of action-related text", where the team designed an experiment to compare the knowledge representation skill of experienced hockey players and novices. Each group first read sentences describing both hockey-related action and common, "every-day" action, (i.e. "the referee saw the hockey helmet on the bench" vs. "the child saw the balloon in the air"). They were then shown pictures of the object mentioned in the sentences and were asked if the picture matched the action in the sentence they read.

Both groups, the athletes and the novices, responded equally in terms of accuracy and response time to the everyday sentences and pictures, but the athletes responded significantly faster to the hockey-specific sentences and pictures. The conclusion is that those with the sensorimotor experience of sport give them an advantage of processing time over those that have not had that same experience.

Now, you may be saying, "Ya' think!?" to this somewhat obvious statement that people who have played hockey will respond faster to sentence/picture relationships than non-hockey players. Stay with us here for a minute, as the 2006 study set the groundwork for Beilock's team to take the next step with the question, "is there any evidence that the athletes are using different parts of their brain when processing these match or no match decisions?" The link between our physical skill memory and our language comprehension would be at the base of the embodied cognition theory. So, in the latest research, the HPL team kept the same basic experimental design, but now wanted to watch the participants' brain activity using fMRI scanning. This time, there were three groups, hockey players, avid fans of hockey and novices who had no playing or viewing experience with hockey at all. First, all groups passively listened to sentences about hockey actions and also sentences about everyday actions while being monitored by fMRI. Second, outside of the fMRI scanner, they again listened to hockey-related and everyday-related action sentences and then were shown pictures of hockey or every day action and asked if there was a match or mis-match between the sentence and the picture.

This comprehension test showed similar results as in 2006, but now the team could try to match the relative skill in comprehension to the neural activity shown in the fMRI scans when listening. Both the players and the fans showed increased activity in the left dorsal premotor cortex, a region thought to support the selection of well-learned action plans and procedures. You might be surprised that the fans' brains on the same regions as the athletes. We saw this effect in a previous post, "Does Practice Make Perfect", where those that practiced a new dance routine and those that only watched it showed similar brain area activity. On the other side, the total novices showed activity in the bilateral primary sensory-motor cortex, an area typically known for carrying out step by step instructions for new or novel tasks.

So, the interesting finding here is that those with experience, either playing or watching, are actually calling on additional neural networks in their brains to help their normal language comprehension abilities. In other words, the memories of learned actions are linked and assist other cognitive tasks. That sounds pretty much like the definition of embodied cognition and Dr. Beilock's research has helped that theory take another step forward. In her words, "Experience playing and watching sports has enduring effects on language understanding by changing the neural networks that support comprehension to incorporate areas active in performing sports skills."

So, take pride in your own brain the next time you hear, "Kobe dribbles the ball to the top of the key, crosses over, drives the lane, and finger rolls over Duncan for two." If you can picture that play in your mind, your left dorsal premotor cortex just kicked into gear!

ResearchBlogging.org


S. L. Beilock, I. M. Lyons, A. Mattarella-Micke, H. C. Nusbaum, S. L. Small (2008). Sports experience changes the neural processing of action language Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803424105

Lauren E. Holt, Sian L. Beilock (2006). Expertise and its embodiment: Examining the
impact of sensorimotor skill expertise on the
representation of action-related text Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13 (4), 694-701 DOI: 17201372

Comments

Watching Sports Is Good For Your Brain
Why, just because our brains are designed to make the correspondence between familiar words and the objects for which they stand doesn't mean any one language is better for the brain than any other. The same could be said about any object whatsoever, if my brain can process the street names of drugs and the effects they produce because I'm a drug addict, does that mean watching movies about drug addicts or listening to people talk about drugs is good for me? After all, certain terms, say, "a kilo," which means "a kilogram of cocaine" could trigger the mental image of a large quantity of drugs in my mind and therefore "left dorsal premotor cortex just kicked into gear!" Is this good for me? If not, how is this different than the claim that hearing about/watching sports is good for those who are into sports? Ditto for any other topic or experience which can be expressed in words?
DanPeterson's picture
Thanks for the comment. I can see your point. The difference is in the sports. context, the researchers are pointing to the physical motor skill link, rather than just simple language comprehension. After I read the 2006 study, I had the same reaction that you did. But this 2008 study showed the use of additional areas of the brain that are used primarily for motor skills, hence the focus on sports.

I think the value of the left dorsal premotor cortex (LDPC) activity has to be evaluated in terms of the moral value of trigger or the experience which corresponds to increased activity in the LDPC. Presumably my watching a basketball game as a basketball fan will correspond to LDPC activity unique to it. True, it may be very similar to the LDPC activity that corresponds to me, also a baseball fan, watching baseball, but one would think that if the brain processes are absolutely identical, then the sensory experience produced by the activity would be identical as well. If one holds this one-one correspondence between brain processes and experiences (sensory experiences, e.g. activities), then, it would seem to follow that the type of LDPC activity triggered depends on the activity or experience which does the triggering. Unless there is another benefit one can enjoy, other than the enhanced focus and quicker mental imagining of the activity or event being described, then the LDPC activity would not necessarily be beneficial unless the trigger activity had some sort of moral or utilitarian value. If the drug abuse analogy doesn't fit because it is somehow less of an activity, let's consider the executioner. Our executioner works for an insane despot who wants to make sure the condemned are thoroughly put to death. He has his opposition beheaded with an ax which the executioner swings using his arms, back, shoulders, stomach, legs, and several minute muscles which he has developed over the years (the ax is heavy). It seems to me that a golfer or hockey player would develop some of the same arm, leg, back, etc. muscles with years of swinging around the golf clubs or hockey stick. Would the LDPC activity triggered by an account of an execution in the executioner's brain be "good" for him in the same way the LDPC activity triggered by an account of an incredible hole-in-one in the golfer's brain is "good" for him (the golfer)? Perhaps it would be, only insofar as the executioner could off his ruler's opposition more effectively? But then, the sports fan/player would benefit from the LDPC activity only insofar as he or she participates in that sport (e.g. in playing the sport or recounting plays of a game to a friend) but would not enjoy an further benefits.
DanPeterson's picture

Hi PJN,

Great example with the executioner!  I admit the semantics around "good" in the title could be argued either way.  I also admit that the title was a little "opportunistic" to attract some readers!  :-)

What do you think of the real concept being tested here; embodied cognition?  The theory that there is a physicality to our perceptions and actions that is based on our physical skills/experiences?

 Dan


I have to admit that this is the first I've heard of the embodied cognition theory of mind, however, I have read some of the cited forerunners of the theory, namely Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. That said, I find the theory of embodied cognition more in the spirit of materialist theories of cognition in which consciousness is identified, somehow, with actual material brain processes. On this view, mental (immaterial, psychical) processes can be analyzed, explained and understood in terms of brain (material, physical) processes. Of course, neuroscience must progress further before this is possible. I see the embodied cognition theory as an extension of the materialist theory for a couple of reasons. First, the tips of my fingers are just as important for sensory perception than the appropriate parts of the brain. I include the sensory organs, indeed the entire body, as part of the physical counter-part to the thinking mind. I suppose this makes me somewhat of a dualist, whereas the materialist does not allow for a non-physical element of consciousness. If embodied cognition is the view that upon hearing/watching actions with which one has frequently experienced and of which one has detailed knowledge are processed quicker and the actions are imagined (pictured mentally) more clearly because of brain processes that correspond on that occasion, then I see nothing wrong with this theory on a neurophysiological level. However, if the theory is strong and is used to try to explain consciousness in terms of actions, then I'm not very found of the theory. It seems to me that the LDPC activity could be evidence of some sort of natural mnemonic device (I use the term loosely, for it's really a brain process we are talking about not a rhyme used to remember the order of the planets or whether the "i" comes before the "e" after a "c"). The LDPC activity would be the physical side of the coin, the mental side would be the reports of clearer imagery and quicker understanding of the events being described. Classical empiricism holds that particular sensory perceptions form an impression, these impression can be abstracted into an "idea" of various kinds of impressions. For instance, a child can have sensory experiences of his or her first apple, he or she can be told that that red object is called "an apple." After seeing many red objects that taste, feel, smell, etc. like the thing called "an apple." The child will have a basic "idea" of "an apple," i.e. he or she will know what an apple is. Upon hearing the word "apple" or upon seeing, say, a painting of a bowl of fruit (which includes an apple) the "idea" of "apple" may come to the child's mind, perhaps even a specific apple. Another piece of fruit, one which the child may have never encountered, a kiwi, for example, will not have a corresponding "idea" but will merely be a particular impression. If this impression is not reinforced with subsequent kiwi impressions, then perhaps no "idea" of kiwi will be formed (or if one is, it will surely not be as strong as the "idea" of an apple). This is a theory primarily about the mental side of the coin, perhaps, when the ideas are derived from impressions formed through activities such as sports, the physical side of this processes can be explained with the increased activity of LDPC.
DanPeterson's picture

Wow!  That was an amazing reply and thanks!  Another admission about this post and my column here.  I am a true novice in these topics (which might be painfully obvious) and I created this blog to teach myself as I go as I find the subject matter fascinating.  Much of this learning takes place through great commentary on my stories, like yours.  Please stop by either here or at my home, Sports Are 80 Percent Mental, and feel free to offer your thoughts on some of the other posts.

Dan


Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.