Elsevier

Neuroscience Letters

Volume 540, 12 April 2013, Pages 43-55
Neuroscience Letters

Mini review
Mirror neurons: Functions, mechanisms and models

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.10.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Mirror neurons for manipulation fire both when the animal manipulates an object in a specific way and when it sees another animal (or the experimenter) perform an action that is more or less similar. Such neurons were originally found in macaque monkeys, in the ventral premotor cortex, area F5 and later also in the inferior parietal lobule. Recent neuroimaging data indicate that the adult human brain is endowed with a “mirror neuron system,” putatively containing mirror neurons and other neurons, for matching the observation and execution of actions. Mirror neurons may serve action recognition in monkeys as well as humans, whereas their putative role in imitation and language may be realized in human but not in monkey. This article shows the important role of computational models in providing sufficient and causal explanations for the observed phenomena involving mirror systems and the learning processes which form them, and underlines the need for additional circuitry to lift up the monkey mirror neuron circuit to sustain the posited cognitive functions attributed to the human mirror neuron system.

Highlights

► In the literature various functions and supporting mechanisms are attributed to MNs. ► Many of the functions are not observed in monkeys: look for evolutionary explanation. ► The distinction between a brain function and mechanism must be made clear. ► Computational models can be used in clarifying mechanisms that can support MNs.

Introduction

Mirror neurons for manipulation fire both when the animal manipulates an object in a specific way and when it sees another animal (or the experimenter) perform an action that is more or less similar. Such neurons were originally found in macaque monkeys, in the ventral premotor cortex, area F5 [21], [32], [76], and later also in the inferior parietal lobule [28], [78]. Not all visuomotor neurons in F5 show the mirror property. There are F5 visuomotor neurons that selectively discharge to the visual presentation of a given object, which also discharge selectively during grasping of that object [61]. These neurons are called canonical neurons, and are believed to play a crucial role in transforming visual appearance of objects into motor plans for interacting with them [77]. Area F5 also includes auditory mirror neurons [54] that respond not only to the view but also to the sound of actions with typical sounds (e.g. breaking a peanut, tearing paper). Although classically, the actions associated with mirror neurons in the monkey are considered to be transitive, i.e. the action has to be directed to an object, which may be removed from the view of the monkey before hand-contact [e.g. 95], more recent data indicates that transitivity may not be a prerequisite for mirror-like activity (see also Section 7).

Recent neuroimaging findings indicate that the adult human brain is endowed with a system for matching the observation and execution of actions which might be homologous to the macaque mirror neuron system [10], [73], [77]. In spite of the growing number of human brain imaging data related to posited ‘human mirror systems’ [6], [13], [25], [43], [44], [83], the experimental data on mirror neurons are available mainly for monkeys as systematic recordings using electrophysiology cannot be used to investigate the human brain. Therefore it must be emphasized that in humans a mirror system refers to a brain region (or set of brain regions) that becomes active for both observation and execution of a class of actions.

In the literature a set of functions is attributed to monkey and human putative mirror neuron system, and several terms are used to describe mechanisms underlying these functions. However, many of these functions are observed in human but not in monkeys, thus suggesting evolution within the mirror systems or within the wider networks of which they are part. Among these are imitation [13], [58], action understanding [e.g. 95], intention attribution [43] and (evolution of) language [74]. Recently, reviews and meta-analyses that are critical of the claimed mirror neuron functions have started to appear, in particular with the focus on the ambiguity of the terminology used to describe mirror neuron functions such as direct matching and motor resonance [17], [19], [23], [92]. In part such failures to unambiguously describe mirror neuron function, follow from ignoring the distinction between a brain function and a possible mechanism (Box 1). In the majority of mirror neuron literature, functions associated with a mirror system in humans are attributed to “direct matching” or “motor resonance” and sometimes with “motor simulation” as a mechanism to underlie action/intention understanding [34], [78] and theory of mind [33] without either a precise definition of such a “mechanism” nor a clear account of how it contributes to the observed function. It is simply assumed that mirror systems are involved in this property. However, we know (by extrapolation from the macaque) that a mirror system will contain many types of neurons other than mirror neurons. Thus, when a brain imaging study reports increased activity in a mirror system for some task relative to a control it is a mistake (all too frequent in the literature) to assume that activity in mirror neurons underlies the activation – in some cases, it will be, but by no means in all.

Our task in this article is to make the case for the use of computational models, whether in terms of neural networks or higher level constructs such as control systems, in clarifying mechanisms that are sufficient to explain observed phenomena involving mirror systems. The mechanisms we demonstrate might not be the same with those employed by the brain, but their very precision sets the stage for experiments more precise than those guided by claims like “a motor resonance supports the observed function.” To be concrete, we will be interested with these questions:

  • Is the postulated mechanism sound from a computational point of view?

  • To what extent can a brain implement the postulated mechanism?

  • What are the additional mechanisms needed on top of the claimed mechanisms to yield the posited functions?

Section snippets

Direct matching

To evaluate the direct matching or motor resonance hypothesis, we must first clarify what is matched (decoded)? and how is the matched action encoded by the mirror neurons (MNs).

Action understanding and direct matching

Mirror neurons, when initially discovered in macaques, were thought to be involved in action recognition [30], [32], [76]. Although the term “action understanding” was often used, the exact meaning of “understanding” as used is not clear. In fact, the neurophysiological data simply show that a mirror neuron fires both when the monkey executes a certain action and when he observes more or less congruent actions. We think at minimum “understanding” includes the ability of an organism to

But MNs are active during execution of the monkey's own actions

Our conclusion from the above discussion is that it is not meaningful to focus on MNs in isolation but their (possible) role in an understanding network must be the target for research, for which the current anatomical and behavioral data falls short of giving a full picture. However, even this broader discussion relates – as does almost all the extant literature on mirror neurons – to the activity of MNs during observation of another's actions, what about the activity of MNs during the

Simulation theory and direct matching

We return to the emphasis on interpreting MNs in the context of observing the actions of others. Gallese and Goldman [33] suggest that the purpose of MNs is to enable an organism to detect certain mental states of observed conspecifics via mental simulation. According to this view, mirror neurons could be the precursor of mind-reading ability, being compatible with the simulation theory hypothesis according to which mental states of others are represented by representing their states in terms

Distinguishing computational and conceptual modeling

In this section we emphasize the difference of conceptual and computational models. At one extreme the statement “an observed action is represented in motor terms” may define a conceptual model but in developing a computational model, a set of strict and unambiguous specifications must be followed. In particular, the notions of what is matched and how it is represented as in Section 2 must be precisely defined. Furthermore the observation must be also explained in the model specification: is it

Internal models and mirror neurons

Although we have indicated that direct matching (corresponding to inverse modeling at some control level) is the prime focus of the neuroscientific community for mirror neurons, there are a few proposals that involve MNs in forward modeling [13], [44]. The idea being the mirror code is used to generate a visual prediction in the Superior Temporal Sulcus (STS) where neurons have been found with selectivity for biological movement (e.g. of arms, whole body) for comparison. Miall [58] suggested

Development of mirror neurons

Despite the growing number of reports on adult mirror neuron systems, data on development of the mirror system for both human and other primates is scarce. It is known that the macaque mirror neuron system is adaptive: responses to novel actions can be acquired through repeated experience. For example, some mirror neurons respond to both execution and viewing of ripping a sheet of paper, which is not in the ecological repertoire of wild monkeys [54]. Furthermore, as we have seen, some mirror

Evolution of the language-ready brain

The mirror system hypothesis (MSH) of the evolution of the language-ready brain has developed over the years [2], [3], [74] to embrace a wide body of data. This is not the place to review those developments or the details of the current version of the model. Instead, we simply summarize the stages in biological evolution of the brain that the hypothesis posits, noting that it progresses from a mirror system for manual actions posited for our last common ancestor with monkeys 25 mya by a posited

Discussion

Our discussion so far indicates that the key to understanding the function of MNs and the mechanisms that facilitate that function is governed by our knowledge on the coding of MNs and how evolution changed and augmented MNs.

What do MNs encode (during action execution) and decode (during action observation)? As brain imaging cannot offer much help in this endeavor due to the gross temporal and/or spatial smearing of the neural activity; we hold that most direct information can be obtained via

Acknowledgement

This material is based in part on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0924674 (Michael A. Arbib, Principal Investigator). We thank Prof. Akira Murata for his useful comments and pointers on the anatomical connections of area F5. Author MK was supported by the Strategic Research Program for Brain Sciences of Japanese MEXT.

References (99)

  • S. Higuchi et al.

    Cerebellar activity evoked by common tool-use execution and imagery tasks: an fMRI study

    Cortex

    (2007)
  • M. Kawato

    Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology

    (1999)
  • C. Keysers et al.

    Demystifying social cognition: a Hebbian perspective

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences

    (2004)
  • A. Kraskov et al.

    Corticospinal neurons in macaque ventral premotor cortex with mirror properties: a potential mechanism for action suppression?

    Neuron

    (2009)
  • Y. Miyawaki et al.

    Visual image reconstruction from human brain activity using a combination of multiscale local image decoders

    Neuron

    (2008)
  • T. Naselaris et al.

    Encoding and decoding in fMRI

    Neuroimage

    (2011)
  • S. Nishimoto et al.

    Reconstructing visual experiences from brain activity evoked by natural movies

    Current Biology

    (2011)
  • E. Oztop et al.

    Mirror neurons and imitation: a computationally guided review

    Neural Networks

    (2006)
  • E. Oztop et al.

    Mental state inference using visual control parameters

    Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research

    (2005)
  • D.I. Perrett et al.

    Visual analysis of body movements by neurones in the temporal cortex of the macaque monkey: a preliminary report

    Behavioural Brain Research

    (1985)
  • G. Rizzolatti et al.

    Language within our grasp

    Trends in Neurosciences

    (1998)
  • G. Rizzolatti et al.

    Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions

    Cognitive Brain Research

    (1996)
  • G. Rizzolatti et al.

    Motor and cognitive functions of the ventral premotor cortex

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology

    (2002)
  • H. Sakata et al.

    The TINS lecture—the parietal association cortex in depth perception and visual control of hand action

    Trends in Neurosciences

    (1997)
  • J.I. Skipper et al.

    Listening to talking faces: motor cortical activation during speech perception

    Neuroimage

    (2005)
  • M.A. Umilta et al.

    I know what you are doing: a neurophysiological study

    Neuron

    (2001)
  • D.M. Wolpert et al.

    Perspectives and problems in motor learning

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences

    (2001)
  • D.M. Wolpert et al.

    Multiple paired forward and inverse models for motor control

    Neural Networks

    (1998)
  • M.A. Arbib

    From mirror neurons to complex imitation in the evolution of language and tool use

    Annual Review of Anthropology

    (2011)
  • M.A. Arbib

    From monkey-like action recognition to human language: an evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics

    The Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    (2005)
  • M.A. Arbib

    How the Brain Got Language: The Mirror System Hypothesis

    (2012)
  • M.A. Arbib et al.

    Tool use and the distalization of the end-effector

    Psychological Research

    (2009)
  • M.A. Arbib et al.

    Primate vocalization, gesture, and the evolution of human language

    Current Anthropology

    (2008)
  • L. Aziz-Zadeh et al.

    Understanding otherness: the neural bases of action comprehension and pain empathy in a congenital amputee

    Cerebral Cortex

    (2012)
  • J. Bonaiuto et al.

    Extending the mirror neuron system model, II: what did I just do? A new role for mirror neurons

    Biological Cybernetics

    (2010)
  • J. Bonaiuto et al.

    Extending the mirror neuron system model, I. Audible actions and invisible grasps

    Biological Cybernetics

    (2007)
  • G. Buccino et al.

    Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study

    European Journal of Neuroscience

    (2001)
  • R.W. Byrne

    Imitation as behaviour parsing

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences

    (2003)
  • D.P. Carey et al.

    Recognizing, understanding, and producing action

  • L. Carr et al.

    Neural mechanisms of empathy in humans: a relay from neural systems for imitation to limbic areas

    PNAS

    (2003)
  • A. Casile et al.

    The mirror neuron system: a fresh view

    Neuroscientist

    (2011)
  • G. Csibra

    Mirror neurons and action observation. Is simulation involved? What do mirror neurons mean?

    Interdisciplines

    (2005)
  • C. Darwin

    The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex

    (1871)
  • F. de Vignemont et al.

    Action observation and execution: what is shared?

    Social Neuroscience

    (2008)
  • Y. Demiris et al.

    Distributed, predictive perception of actions: a biologically inspired robotics architecture for imitation and learning

    Connection Science

    (2003)
  • G. Di Pellegrino et al.

    Understanding motor events—a neurophysiological study

    Experimental Brain Research

    (1992)
  • L. Fadiga et al.

    Electrophysiology of action representation

    Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology

    (2004)
  • L. Fadiga et al.

    Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: a TMS study

    European Journal Neuroscience

    (2002)
  • W.T. Fitch

    The Evolution of Language

    (2010)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text