Grasping with a Twist: Dissociating Action Goals from Motor Actions in Human Frontoparietal Circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In daily life, prehension is typically not the end goal of hand-object interactions but a precursor for manipulation. Nevertheless, functional MRI (fMRI) studies investigating manual manipulation have primarily relied on prehension as the end goal of an action. Here, we used slow event-related fMRI to investigate differences in neural activation patterns between prehension in isolation and prehension for object manipulation. Sixteen (seven males and nine females) participants were instructed either to simply grasp the handle of a rotatable dial (isolated prehension) or to grasp and turn it (prehension for object manipulation). We used representational similarity analysis (RSA) to investigate whether the experimental conditions could be discriminated from each other based on differences in task-related brain activation patterns. We also used temporal multivoxel pattern analysis (tMVPA) to examine the evolution of regional activation patterns over time. Importantly, we were able to differentiate isolated prehension and prehension for manipulation from activation patterns in the early visual cortex, the caudal intraparietal sulcus (cIPS), and the superior parietal lobule (SPL). Our findings indicate that object manipulation extends beyond the putative cortical grasping network (anterior intraparietal sulcus, premotor and motor cortices) to include the superior parietal lobule and early visual cortex. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT A simple act such as turning an oven dial requires not only that the CNS encode the initial state (starting dial orientation) of the object but also the appropriate posture to grasp it to achieve the desired end state (final dial orientation) and the motor commands to achieve that state. Using advanced temporal neuroimaging analysis techniques, we reveal how such actions unfold over time and how they differ between object manipulation (turning a dial) versus grasping alone. We find that a combination of brain areas implicated in visual processing and sensorimotor integration can distinguish between the complex and simple tasks during planning, with neural patterns that approximate those during the actual execution of the action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".