When does action comprehension need motor involvement? Evidence from upper limb aplasia

Motor theories of action comprehension claim that comprehending the meaning of an action performed by a conspecific relies on the perceiver's own motor representation of the same action. According to this view, whether an action belongs to the motor repertoire of the perceiver should impact the ease by which this action is comprehended. We tested this prediction by assessing the ability of an individual (D.C.) born without upper limbs to comprehend actions involving hands (e.g., throwing) or other body parts (e.g., jumping). The tests used a range of different visual stimuli differing in the kind of information provided. The results showed that D.C. was as accurate and fast as control participants in comprehending natural video and photographic presentations of both manual and nonmanual actions, as well as pantomimes. However, he was selectively impaired at identifying point-light animations of manual actions. This impairment was not due to a difficulty in processing kinematic information per se. D.C. was indeed as accurate as control participants in two additional tests requiring a fine-grained analysis of an actor's arm or whole-body movements. These results challenge motor theories of action comprehension by showing that the visual analysis of body shape and motion provides sufficient input for comprehending observed actions. However, when body shape information is sparsely available, motor involvement becomes critical to interpret observed actions. We suggest that, with natural human movement stimuli, motor representations contribute to action comprehension each time visual information is incomplete or ambiguous.