An investigation of the neural circuits underlying reaching and reach-to-grasp movements: from planning to execution

Begliomini, Chiara; Sanctis, Teresa De; Marangon, Mattia; Tarantino, Vincenza; Sartori, Luisa; Miotto, Diego; Motta, Raffaella; Stramare, Roberto; Castiello, Umberto

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00676

Cited by 37 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reaching‐only and reach‐to‐grasp actions could be better characterized by temporal, rather than spatial criteria across planning and execution stages of the action, as also suggested by a recent study of Begliomini et al. (2014). Here we showed that several areas of the human reaching–grasping network are involved in processing aspects related to both reach‐to‐grasp and reaching‐only actions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2014; Culham et al. 2006; Vesia and Crawford, 2012) and has been shown to be involved in the representation of both the transport and the hand preshaping components of reaching‐only and reach‐to‐grasp actions, respectively (e.g., Fabbri et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recent studies have confirmed these findings, suggesting that grasp types (PG vs. WHG) have distinct representations within a wide frontal–parietal network subserving reach‐to‐grasp movements (Begliomini et al. 2014). This issue, however, remains controversial given that other studies failed to detect such differences (e.g., Kuhtz‐Buschbeck et al., 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Probing the reaching–grasping network in humans through multivoxel pattern decoding

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe quest for a putative human homolog of the reaching–grasping network identified in monkeys has been the focus of many neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies in recent years. These studies have shown that the network underlying reaching‐only and reach‐to‐grasp movements includes the superior parieto‐occipital cortex (SPOC), the anterior part of the human intraparietal sulcus (hAIP), the ventral and the dorsal portion of the premotor cortex, and the primary motor cortex (M1). Recent evidence for a wider frontoparietal network coding for different aspects of reaching‐only and reach‐to‐grasp actions calls for a more fine‐grained assessment of the reaching–grasping network in humans by exploiting pattern decoding methods (multivoxel pattern analysis—MVPA).MethodsHere, we used MPVA on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data to assess whether regions of the frontoparietal network discriminate between reaching‐only and reach‐to‐grasp actions, natural and constrained grasping, different grasp types, and object sizes. Participants were required to perform either reaching‐only movements or two reach‐to‐grasp types (precision or whole hand grasp) upon spherical objects of different sizes.ResultsMultivoxel pattern analysis highlighted that, independently from the object size, all the selected regions of both hemispheres contribute in coding for grasp type, with the exception of SPOC and the right hAIP. Consistent with recent neurophysiological findings on monkeys, there was no evidence for a clear‐cut distinction between a dorsomedial and a dorsolateral pathway that would be specialized for reaching‐only and reach‐to‐grasp actions, respectively. Nevertheless, the comparison of decoding accuracy across brain areas highlighted their different contributions to reaching‐only and grasping actions.ConclusionsAltogether, our findings enrich the current knowledge regarding the functional role of key brain areas involved in the cortical control of reaching‐only and reach‐to‐grasp actions in humans, by revealing novel fine‐grained distinctions among action types within a wide frontoparietal network.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Probing the reaching–grasping network in humans through multivoxel pattern decoding

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For feedback, the left M1 received influence from the fronto-parietal cortices, which are engaged in motor preparation and control [28–30]. Impressively, the causal flow from the prefrontal cortex and the posterior parietal cortex disappeared in both the PPH and CPH groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Altered Effective Connectivity of the Primary Motor Cortex in Stroke: A Resting-State fMRI Study with Granger Causality Analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary motor cortex (M1) is often abnormally recruited in stroke patients with motor disabilities. However, little is known about the alterations in the causal connectivity of M1 following stroke. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the effective connectivity of the ipsilesional M1 is disturbed in stroke patients who show different outcomes in hand motor function. 23 patients with left-hemisphere subcortical stroke were selected and divided into two subgroups: partially paralyzed hands (PPH) and completely paralyzed hands (CPH). Further, 24 matched healthy controls (HCs) were recruited. A voxel-wise Granger causality analysis (GCA) on the resting-state fMRI data between the ipsilesional M1 and the whole brain was performed to explore differences between the three groups. Our results showed that the influence from the frontoparietal cortices to ipsilesional M1 was diminished in both stroke subgroups and the influence from ipsilesional M1 to the sensorimotor cortices decreased greater in the CPH group than in the PPH group. Moreover, compared with the PPH group, the decreased influence from ipsilesional M1 to the contralesional cerebellum and from the contralesional superior parietal lobe to ipsilesional M1 were observed in the CPH group, and their GCA values were positively correlated with the FMA scores; Conversely, the increased influence from ipsilesional M1 to the ipsilesional middle frontal gyrus and middle temporal gyrus were observed, whose GCA values were negatively correlated with the FMA scores. This study suggests that the abnormalities of casual flow in the ipsilesional M1 are related to the severity of stroke-hand dysfunction, providing valuable information to understand the deficits in resting-state effective connectivity of motor execution and the frontoparietal motor control network during brain plasticity following stroke.

show abstract

“…Regional factors (anterior-posterior & left-right) were also included; see below section 2.6). Action type (grasping vs. pointing) was not included because the two blocks do not constitute independent levels of one variable, e.g., [72,73,74]. Furthermore, grasping and pointing movement are not strictly comparable as they differ kinematically [75,59,76] and seem to rely on non-identical neural networks [31].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action Priority: Early Neurophysiological Interaction of Conceptual and Motor Representations

Koester

Schack

2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Handling our everyday life, we often react manually to verbal requests or instruction, but the functional interrelations of motor control and language are not fully understood yet, especially their neurophysiological basis. Here, we investigated whether specific motor representations for grip types interact neurophysiologically with conceptual information, that is, when reading nouns. Participants performed lexical decisions and, for words, executed a grasp-and-lift task on objects of different sizes involving precision or power grips while the electroencephalogram was recorded. Nouns could denote objects that require either a precision or a power grip and could, thus, be (in)congruent with the performed grasp. In a control block, participants pointed at the objects instead of grasping them. The main result revealed an event-related potential (ERP) interaction of grip type and conceptual information which was not present for pointing. Incongruent compared to congruent conditions elicited an increased positivity (100–200 ms after noun onset). Grip type effects were obtained in response-locked analyses of the grasping ERPs (100–300 ms at left anterior electrodes). These findings attest that grip type and conceptual information are functionally related when planning a grasping action but such an interaction could not be detected for pointing. Generally, the results suggest that control of behaviour can be modulated by task demands; conceptual noun information (i.e., associated action knowledge) may gain processing priority if the task requires a complex motor response.

show abstract

An investigation of the neural circuits underlying reaching and reach-to-grasp movements: from planning to execution

Cited by 37 publications

References 97 publications

Probing the reaching–grasping network in humans through multivoxel pattern decoding

Probing the reaching–grasping network in humans through multivoxel pattern decoding

Altered Effective Connectivity of the Primary Motor Cortex in Stroke: A Resting-State fMRI Study with Granger Causality Analysis

Action Priority: Early Neurophysiological Interaction of Conceptual and Motor Representations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About