Back

Beyond Reach I: Neuroimaging Reveals Different Cortico-cerebellar Networks for Grasp vs. Object Placement.

Luabeya, G. N.; Freud, E.; Crawford, J. D.

2026-04-23 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.04.21.719705 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Object manipulation usually involves both acquisition and placement, but neuroimaging studies tend to focus on its initial reach-to-grasp component. To understand how grasp and placement are represented in the brain, we designed an event-related fMRI study in which 20 participants alternated between grasping / placing a rectangular object from / toward templates presented at variable locations and orientations on an inclined plane. Despite the similarity in target information (i.e., location and orientation), we expected to see sensory and intentional task differences, as the grasp relied on matching the hand to the object, whereas placement relied on matching the object to the template. For our analysis, we examined BOLD activation across two epochs (planning phase before movement onset and execution phase during the movement), and applied graph-theoretical analysis (GTA) of whole-brain functional connectivity based on the joint time series from these two epochs. In both tasks, we found that common activation was more focused on prefrontal regions during planning and on sensorimotor regions during execution, with a specific increase in cerebellar activation during placement. Furthermore, the greater placement activation was also found in action-related regions of interest during the planning phase, and they could accurately decode between our two tasks. GTA categorized the two networks into three identical modules (prefrontal, cerebellar-occipito-parietal, and sensorimotor) and found task-based differences in modularity scores in the prefrontal and cerebellar-occipito-parietal modules. Overall, these data show that although reach-to-grasp and reach-to-place movements share extensive neural circuitry, they also exhibit task-specific differences, likely related to differences in intentionality during planning and in sensory feedback during movement execution.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
18.2%
2
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
9.0%
3
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 2%
7.0%
4
Cerebral Cortex
357 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.7%
5
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
6.7%
6
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.9%
50% of probability mass above
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.9%
8
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 27%
3.5%
9
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 11%
3.0%
11
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 18%
2.8%
12
Network Neuroscience
116 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
13
Imaging Neuroscience
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
14
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 10%
2.0%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 30%
1.8%
16
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
Neuron
282 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.6%
18
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
19
Progress in Neurobiology
41 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
20
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.3%
21
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.1%
22
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.9%
23
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Cerebral Cortex Communications
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
26
Cortex
102 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
27
Neuropsychologia
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 22%
0.6%