1. Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 184-199 (January 2013)
Tool use kinematics across different modes of execution. Implications for action representation and apraxia 
Joachim Hermsdörfer, Yong Li, Jennifer Randerath, Agnès Roby-Brami, Georg Goldenberg 
Cortex 
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages (January 2013)
DOI: /j.cortex
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

2. Fig. 1
Lesion density of 22 patients with LBD, and ten patients with RBD. MNI Z-coordinates of horizontal slices are indicated.
Cortex  , DOI: ( /j.cortex )
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

3. Fig. 2
Three-dimensional representations of the trajectories of the hand marker for a representative control subject and five patients with LBD (all performing with the left hand) during the three task conditions. The complete trajectory (including eventual grasping movements) during the second of three trials is always shown. In the condition Use the trajectory of the hammer marker is additionally displayed (red line). While the performance of patient pa23 could be analyzed despite abnormal trajectories, the other four patients could not be evaluated due to action failures with different characteristics (see text).
Cortex  , DOI: ( /j.cortex )
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

4. Fig. 3
Main parameters of the hammering action of patients and corresponding control subjects for the different task conditions (Panto: pantomime, Demo: demonstration with hammer only, Use: actual use). Results for left and right hand groups are displayed separately (LBD PH+: patients with LBD and normal pantomime of hammering according to video scoring, N = 9; LBD PH−: LBD patients with impaired pantomime of hammering score, N = 10; RBD: patients with RBD, N = 10; CL/CR control subjects performing with the left/right hand, N = 10/10). (A) Time to initiate regular movement; (B) geometrical parameters angle and path length of the hit; (C) kinematical parameters cycle duration and maximum downward velocity; (D) wrist movement. Main bars and error bars represent group means and SD. Brackets indicate results of post hoc comparisons using t-tests (∗∗∗: p ≤ .001, ∗∗: p ≤ .01, ∗: p ≤ .05, trends .05 < p < .06 are indicated in brackets; note that significant post hoc findings are indicated irrespectively of ANOVA results).
Cortex  , DOI: ( /j.cortex )
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

5. Fig. 4
Parameters reflecting the movements of the head of the hammer during actual use. The maximum velocity of the downward hits, the hitting angle, and the precision of the hits are shown. Same conventions as in Fig. 3.
Cortex  , DOI: ( /j.cortex )
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

6. Fig. 5
Correlation of movement direction and maximum downward velocity between the pairs of the three tasks conditions for LBD patients (N = 19, blue) and control subjects (N = 19, grey). The linear regression line is displayed when the coefficient of correlation R exceeds .4. (see also Table 3).
Cortex  , DOI: ( /j.cortex )
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

7. Fig. 6
Results of lesion subtraction of 18 LBD patients with impaired versus unimpaired performance for the task conditions Panto, Demo, and Use. The percentage of overlapping lesions of the patients with impaired behaviour after subtraction of the group with normal behaviour is illustrated by five different colours coding increasing frequencies from dark red (difference = 1–20%) to bright yellow (difference = 81–100%). Each colour represents 20% increments. Blue colours indicate regions damaged more frequently in the group of patients with normal behaviour than in the group with disturbed behaviour. MNI Z-coordinates are indicated.
Cortex  , DOI: ( /j.cortex )
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions