Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,203 studies31 sourcesUpdated 38 min ago
PreprintCC BY-NDbioRxiv

Reach plans for grasping vs. placing objects evoke different neural dynamics within a shared cortico-cerebellar mechanism.

  • P. Georgiadis1
  • G. N. Luabeya
  • E. Freud
  • P. J. Kohler
  • J. D. Crawford
  1. 1York University
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Many reach studies treat grasping as the endpoint of a reach, but grasping often initiates a sequence of actions, ending with placing the object. Grasping and placing both require object-specific encoding, but placing has different computational demands, introduced by the intent, sensory feedback, and tolerance for spatial error when alignment is required. Recent neuroimaging work suggests that object placement shares similar cortico-cerebellar networks with grasp, with modest increases in network segregation and cerebellar activity. Here, we ask whether Grasp and Place are better distinguished by their spatiotemporal dynamics in both behaviour and scalp-recorded EEG activity. Using high-density EEG and motion tracking, 31 participants performed alternating Grasp/Place movements of a 3D object from/toward an oriented target/template. Place movements were initiated faster but executed more slowly and with greater endpoint-orientation precision than Grasp, indicating distinct control strategies. ERP and microstate analyses revealed that Grasp and Place shared a peri-movement polarity switch, from posterior negativity/frontal positivity during preparation to posterior positivity/frontal negativity during execution. This shared pattern was amplified during Place preparation and prolonged during Place execution, with stronger expression of preparatory medial frontal/cerebellar and execution-related posterior/cerebellar microstate dynamics. Finally, SVM decoding indicated that task-specific information was primarily encoded in low-frequency EEG activity (below 6 Hz). These results confirm that grasping and placing recruit similar cortico-cerebellar mechanisms, yet different spatiotemporal dynamics are employed to support the distinct computational demands of these behaviours.

Related

  1. Cortico-cerebellar beta-band dynamics predict flexible motor timing
    C. S. Zandvoort, C. C. Wissing, J. Winter +5
    bioRxivPreprintCC BYFull textNeurosciencebioRxiv
  2. Assessing the Relative Impact of Grasp and Object on Inferior Frontal Gyrus Activity during a Grasping Task
    E. C. Conlan, C. Foli, W. Memberg +3
    bioRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textSystems & synthetic biologybioRxiv
  3. Neural encoding of grasp and object properties in the posterior parietal and motor cortices of the cortical grasping network in tetraplegic humans
    M. J. THURSTON, D. Bjanes, S. K. Wandelt +4
    bioRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textNeurosciencebioRxiv
  4. Same Behavior, Different Mechanism: What Finite Experiments Can Certify About Integrated Information
    Linqian Wu, Diaoxuan He
    arXivPreprintarXiv licenceFull textNeurosciencearXiv
  5. Reconciling the effects of PMS2 in different repeat expansion disease models supports a common expansion mechanism
    Carson J. Miller, Diego Antonio Jimenez, Alexandra Walker +5
    PNAS NexusPeer-reviewedPublic domainFull text5 citedNeuroscienceOpenAlex

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@misc{georgiadis2026reach,
  title = {{Reach plans for grasping vs. placing objects evoke different neural dynamics within a shared cortico-cerebellar mechanism.}},
  author = {P. Georgiadis and G. N. Luabeya and E. Freud and P. J. Kohler and J. D. Crawford},
  howpublished = {bioRxiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.64898/2026.10.14.759130},
  url = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.14.759130v1},
  note = {CC BY-ND},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - Reach plans for grasping vs. placing objects evoke different neural dynamics within a shared cortico-cerebellar mechanism.
AU  - P. Georgiadis
AU  - G. N. Luabeya
AU  - E. Freud
AU  - P. J. Kohler
AU  - J. D. Crawford
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/14
PB  - bioRxiv
DO  - 10.64898/2026.10.14.759130
UR  - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.14.759130v1
AB  - Many reach studies treat grasping as the endpoint of a reach, but grasping often initiates a sequence of actions, ending with placing the object. Grasping and placing both require object-specific encoding, but placing has different computational demands, introduced by the intent, sensory feedback, and tolerance for spatial error when alignment is required. Recent neuroimaging work suggests that object placement shares similar cortico-cerebellar networks with grasp, with modest increases in network segregation and cerebellar activity. Here, we ask whether Grasp and Place are better distinguished by their spatiotemporal dynamics in both behaviour and scalp-recorded EEG activity. Using high-density EEG and motion tracking, 31 participants performed alternating Grasp/Place movements of a 3D object from/toward an oriented target/template. Place movements were initiated faster but executed more slowly and with greater endpoint-orientation precision than Grasp, indicating distinct control strategies. ERP and microstate analyses revealed that Grasp and Place shared a peri-movement polarity switch, from posterior negativity/frontal positivity during preparation to posterior positivity/frontal negativity during execution. This shared pattern was amplified during Place preparation and prolonged during Place execution, with stronger expression of preparatory medial frontal/cerebellar and execution-related posterior/cerebellar microstate dynamics. Finally, SVM decoding indicated that task-specific information was primarily encoded in low-frequency EEG activity (below 6 Hz). These results confirm that grasping and placing recruit similar cortico-cerebellar mechanisms, yet different spatiotemporal dynamics are employed to support the distinct computational demands of these behaviours.
ER  -