The visualization of tools and manipulable objects activates motor-related areas in the cortex, facilitating possible actions toward them. This pattern of activity may underlie the phenomenon of object affordance. Some cortical motor neurons are also covertly activated during the recognition of body parts such as hands. One hypothesis is that different subpopulations of motor neurons in the frontal cortex are activated in each motor program; for example, canonical neurons in the premotor cortex are responsible for the affordance of visual objects, while mirror neurons support motor imagery triggered during handedness recognition. However, the question remains whether these subpopulations work independently. This hypothesis can be tested with a manual reaction time (MRT) task with a priming paradigm to evaluate whether the view of a manipulable object interferes with the motor imagery of the subject's hand. The MRT provides a measure of the course of information processing in the brain and allows indirect evaluation of cognitive processes. Our results suggest that canonical and mirror neurons work together to create a motor plan involving hand movements to facilitate successful object manipulation.

It has been shown that mental rotation of objects and human body parts is processed differently in the human brain. But what about body parts belonging to other primates? Does our brain process this information like any other object or does it instead maximize the structural similarities with our homologous body parts? We tried to answer this question by measuring the manual reaction time (MRT) of human participants discriminating the handedness of drawings representing the hands of four anthropoid primates (orangutan, chimpanzee, gorilla, and human). Twenty-four right-handed volunteers (13 males and 11 females) were instructed to judge the handedness of a hand drawing in palm view by pressing a left/right key. The orientation of hand drawings varied from 0º (fingers upwards) to 90º lateral (fingers pointing away from the midline), 180º (fingers downwards) and 90º medial (finger towards the midline). The results showed an effect of rotation angle (F(3, 69) = 19.57, P < 0.001), but not of hand identity, on MRTs. Moreover, for all hand drawings, a medial rotation elicited shorter MRTs than a lateral rotation (960 and 1169 ms, respectively, P < 0.05). This result has been previously observed for drawings of the human hand and related to biomechanical constraints of movement performance. Our findings indicate that anthropoid hands are essentially equivalent stimuli for handedness recognition. Since the task involves mentally simulating the posture and rotation of the hands, we wondered if "mirror neurons" could be involved in establishing the motor equivalence between the stimuli and the participants' own hands.

Previous studies have shown that saccadic eye responses but not manual responses were sensitive to the kind of warning signal used, with visual onsets producing longer saccadic latencies compared to visual offsets. The aim of the present study was to determine the effects of distinct warning signals on manual latencies and to test the premise that the onset interference, in fact, does not occur for manual responses. A second objective was to determine if the magnitude of the warning effects could be modulated by contextual procedures. Three experimental conditions based on the kind of warning signal used (visual onset, visual offset and auditory warning) were run in two different contexts (blocked and non-blocked). Eighteen participants were asked to respond to the imperative stimulus that would occur some milliseconds (0, 250, 500 or 750 ms) after the warning signal. The experiment consisted in three experimental sessions of 240 trials, where all the variables were counterbalanced. The data showed that visual onsets produced longer manual latencies than visual offsets in the non-blocked context (275 vs 261 ms; P < 0.001). This interference was obtained, however, only for short intervals between the warning and the stimulus, and was abolished when the blocked context was used (256 vs 255 ms; P = 0.789). These results are discussed in terms of bottom-up and top-down interactions, mainly those related to the role of attentional processing in canceling out competitive interactions and suppressive influences of a distractor on the relevant stimulus.

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.

It is well known that saccadic reaction times (SRT) are reduced when the target is preceded by the offset of the fixation point (FP) - the gap effect. Some authors have proposed that the FP offset also allows the saccadic system to generate a separate population of SRT, the express saccades. Nevertheless, there is no agreement as to whether the gap effect and express responses are also present for manual reaction times (MRT). We tested the gap effect and the MRT distribution in two different conditions, i.e., simple and choice MRT. In the choice MRT condition, subjects need to identify the side of the stimulus and to select the appropriate response, while in the simple MRT these stages are not necessary. We report that the gap effect was present in both conditions (22 ms for choice MRT condition; 15 ms for simple MRT condition), but, when analyzing the MRT distributions, we did not find any clear evidence for express manual responses. The main difference in MRT distribution between simple and choice conditions was a shift towards shorter values for simple MRT.