Although both reaching and grasping require transporting the hand to the object location, only grasping also requires processing of object shape, size and orientation to preshape the hand. Behavioural and neuropsychological evidence suggests that the object processing required for grasping relies on different neural substrates from those mediating object recognition. Specifically, whereas object recognition is believed to rely on structures in the ventral (occipitotemporal) stream, object grasping appears to rely on structures in the dorsal (occipitoparietal) stream. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine whether grasping (compared to reaching) produced activation in dorsal areas, ventral areas, or both. We found greater activity for grasping than reaching in several regions, including anterior intraparietal (AIP) cortex. We also performed a standard object perception localizer (comparing intact vs. scrambled 2D object images) in the same subjects to identify the lateral occipital complex (LOC), a ventral stream area believed to play a critical role in object recognition. Although LOC was activated by the objects presented on both grasping and reaching trials, there was no greater activity for grasping compared to reaching. These results suggest that dorsal areas, including AIP, but not ventral areas such as LOC, play a fundamental role in computing object properties during grasping.

In humans, functional imaging studies have demonstrated a homologue of the macaque motion complex, MT+ [suggested to contain both middle temporal (MT) and medial superior temporal (MST)], in the ascending limb of the inferior temporal sulcus. In the macaque monkey, motion-sensitive areas MT and MST are adjacent in the superior temporal sulcus. Electrophysiological research has demonstrated that while MT receptive fields primarily encode the contralateral visual field, MST dorsal (MSTd) receptive fields extend well into the ipsilateral visual field. Additionally, macaque MST has been shown to receive extraretinal smooth-pursuit eye-movement signals, whereas MT does not. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and the neural properties that had been observed in monkeys to distinguish putative human areas MT from MST. Optic flow stimuli placed in the full field, or contralateral field only, produced a large cluster of functional activation in our subjects consistent with previous reports of human area MT+. Ipsilateral optic flow stimuli limited to the peripheral retina produced activation only in an anterior subsection of the MT+ complex, likely corresponding to putative MSTd. During visual pursuit of a single target, a large portion of the MT+ complex was activated. However, during nonvisual pursuit, only the anterolateral portion of the MT+ complex was activated. This subsection of the MT+ cluster could correspond to putative MSTl (lateral). In summary, we observed three distinct subregions of the human MT+ complex that were arranged in a manner similar to that seen in the monkey.

Previous studies have shown that the BOLD functional MRI (fMRI) signal is increased in several cortical areas when subjects perform anti-saccades compared with pro-saccades. It remains unknown, however, whether this increase is due to an increased cortical motor signal for anti-saccades or due to differences in preparatory set between pro- and anti-saccade trials. To address this question, we measured event-related fMRI in a paradigm that allowed us to separate instruction-related brain activity from saccade-related brain activity. In this paradigm, the instruction to either generate a pro-saccade or an anti-saccade was conveyed by a switch in the color of the central fixation stimulus and preceded the presentation of a peripheral stimulus by either 6, 10, or 14 s. Cortical areas were functionally mapped using the general linear model comparing standard pro- and anti-saccade blocks with fixation blocks. When the trials were aligned on the onset of the instruction stimulus, bilateral frontal eye fields and right hemisphere dorsolateral prefrontal cortex showed an increased signal during the instruction period on anti-saccade trials as compared with pro-saccade trials. When the trials were aligned on the movement stimulus and the instruction period activity was subtracted, there were no differences between pro- and anti-saccades. This finding suggests that the increased cortical activation found in previous blocked designs originates predominately from differences in preparatory set and not from differences in the motor signal between pro- and anti-saccades.

An anti-saccade, which is a saccade directed toward a mirror-symmetrical position in the opposite visual field relative to the visual stimulus, involves at least three separate operations: covert orienting, response suppression, and coordinate transformation. The distinction between pro- and anti-saccades can also be applied to pointing. We used fMRI to compare patterns of brain activation during pro- and anti-movements, to determine whether or not additional areas become active during the production of anti-movements. In parietal cortex, an inferior network was active during both saccades and pointing that included three foci along the intraparietal sulcus: 1) a posterior superior parietal area (pSPR), more active during the anti-tasks; 2) a middle inferior parietal area (mIPR), active only during the anti-tasks; and3) an anterior inferior parietal area (aIPR), equally active for pro- and anti-movement. A superior parietal network was active during pointing but not saccades and included the following:1) a medial region, active during anti- but not pro-pointing (mSPR); 2) an anterior and medial region, more active during pro-pointing (aSPR); and 3) an anterior and lateral region, equally active for pro- and anti-pointing (lSPR). In frontal cortex, areas selectively active during anti-movement were adjacent and anterior to areas that were active during both the anti- and pro-tasks, i.e., were anterior to the frontal eye field and the supplementary motor area. All saccade areas were also active during pointing. In contrast, foci in the dorsal premotor area, the anterior superior frontal region, and anterior cingulate were active during pointing but not saccades. In summary, pointing with central gaze activates a frontoparietal network that includes the saccade network. The operations required for the production of anti-movements recruited additional frontoparietal areas.

Posterior parietal cortex (PPC) participates in the planning of visuospatial behaviors, including reach movements, in gaze-centered coordinates. It is not known if these representations encode the visual goal in retinal coordinates, or the movement direction relative to gaze. Here, by dissociating the intrinsic retinal stimulus from the extrinsic direction of movement, we show that PPC employs a visual code. Using delayed pointing and event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging, we identified a cluster of PPC regions whose activity was topographically (contralaterally) related to the direction of the planned movement. We then switched the normal visual–motor spatial relationship by adapting subjects to optical left/right reversing prisms. With prisms, movement-related PPC topography reversed, remaining tied to the retinal image. Thus, remarkably, the PPC region in each hemisphere now responded more for planned ipsilateral pointing movements. Other non-PPC regions showed the opposite world- or motor-fixed pattern. These findings suggest that PPC primarily encodes not motor commands but movement goals in visual coordinates.