www.elsevier.com/locate/ynimg
NeuroImage 36 (2007) 388 – 395

Central control of grasp: Manipulation of objects with complex andsimple dynamics
Theodore E. Milner, a,b,⁎ David W. Franklin, b Hiroshi Imamizu, b and Mistuo Kawato baSchool of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
Computational Neuroscience Laboratories, ATR, Kyoto, Japanb

Received 23 December 2005; revised 21 January 2007; accepted 26 January 2007
Available online 23 March 2007
We performed whole-brain fMRI to explore the neural mechanismsthat contribute to the ability to manipulate an object with complex
dynamics. Subjects grasped a weighted flexible ruler and balanced it in
an unstable equilibrium position as an archetype of grasping an object
with complex dynamics. This was contrasted with squeezing a soft
foam ball as an archetype of grasping an object with simple dynamics.
We hypothesized that changes in activity in primary motor cortex (MI)would be similar under the two conditions, since muscle activation wasmatched, which was confirmed. We hypothesized further that the
cerebellum would be selectively activated when manipulating theflexible ruler because the ability to make the adjustments necessary tobalance the ruler would require an internal dynamics model,
represented in the cerebellum. As predicted, the ipsilateral cerebellum
was strongly activated when balancing the weighted ruler whereas only
moderate activation was found when squeezing the foam ball. We also
found evidence for selective activation of areas, previously implicatedin tactile object recognition, when holding the flexible ruler. We
speculate that these areas, which include secondary somatosensory
cortex (SII), Brodmann area 40 and insula, integrate tactile andproprioceptive information in the context of controlling the orientationof the flexible ruler and provide appropriate feedback to MI. We
speculate that the failure to find activation of these areas when squeezing
the ball was due to the fact that tactile stimulation was entirely selfproduced, resulting in the attenuation of cortical sensory activity(Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D.M., Frith, C.D., 1998. Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 635–640,
Blakemore, S.-J., Frith, C.D., Wolpert, D.M., 2001. The cerebellum is
involved in predicting the sensory consequences of action. NeuroReport
12, 1879–1884).
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cerebellum; Hand; Internal model; fMRI; Motor cortex; Insula⁎ Corresponding author. School of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6. Fax: +1 604 291 3040.
E-mail address: tmilner@sfu.ca (T.E. Milner).
Available online on ScienceDirect (www.sciencedirect.com).
1053-8119/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.057

Introduction
The complexity of dynamic interactions between humans andcommon implements which we employ as tools and instruments
can vary widely. Our ability to use implements effectively requiresthat we be able to hold them despite differences in dynamics. With
experience we can quickly change patterns of muscle activation toadjust our grasp for differences in mass, moment of inertia, rigidity
or other mechanical properties. This ability is thought to depend ona central representation (internal model) of the dynamics of theinteraction between the human subject and the manipulated object(Flanagan and Wing, 1997; Kawato, 1999). By internal dynamics
model we mean the neural networks that compute the neuralcommands to control the movement of the handheld object andcompensate for its dynamics.
The cerebellum and primary motor cortex appear to be theregions of the brain most directly implicated in the formation andimplementation of internal dynamics models. In particular, theipsilateral cerebellum shows changes in regional cerebral bloodflow during adaptation to novel environmental dynamics that appear to be related to changes in motor error (Nezafat et al., 2001).
Other evidence from fMRI studies suggests that the cerebellum is
involved in forming and implementing representations of noveltransformations between hand and cursor motion (Imamizu et al.,2000, 2003), forward models of grip force–load force coupling(Kawato et al., 2003) and dynamics of object manipulation (Milner
et al., 2006). Evidence for involvement of primary motor cortex isbased primarily on single unit recordings from non-humanprimates. Studies of changes in manipulation dynamics with nonhuman primates have reported shifts in the preferred directions ofneurons in MI (Li et al., 2001) and to a lesser extent in SMA(Padoa-Schioppa et al., 2004) that develop during adaptation andare retained after washout. However, there are major outputs fromthe cerebellum to M1 and minor outputs to SMA (Sakai et al.,
2002; Kelly and Strick, 2003) so it is possible that underlying
changes in cerebellar activity may be responsible for the observedchanges in MI and SMA.
To test the hypothesis that cerebellar activity more closely
represents implementation of an internal model than does activity

T.E. Milner et al. / NeuroImage 36 (2007) 388–395

389

in primary motor cortex, we designed an fMRI study which
compared brain activity when subjects held an object with simple
dynamics and an object with complex dynamics. The former
required no internal model to control grasp while the latter required
an internal model to adjust the finger forces used in grasping theobject for the moment-to-moment control of the object's orientation. From earlier studies, we expected that activity in both primary
motor cortex and cerebellum, relative to resting baseline, would
increase in proportion to muscle activation (Dettmers et al., 1996;
Thickbroom et al., 1998; Ehrsson et al., 2001; Kuhtz-Buschbeck etal., 2001; Dai et al., 2001). However, we predicted that for similarlevels of muscle activation we would find little or no difference inprimary motor cortex activity, but marked differences in activationof the cerebellum because of its involvement in internal modelbased control.
Methods
Seventeen neurologically normal subjects participated in thefirst experiment. Five of these subjects and five additional subjects
participated in the second experiment. Four of these subjects andsix additional subjects participated in the third experiment. All
subjects gave informed consent to the procedures which wereapproved by the institutional ethics board and conformed to the
Declaration of Helsinki. There were three conditions, corresponding to three tasks performed while lying in the supine position. All
subjects performed the tasks with the right hand. The tasks
consisted of squeezing a foam ball (simple), balancing a weighted
flexible ruler (complex) and resting. Each task was performed for
30 s.
In the fMRI experiment (first experiment), there was a 6-s
interval between conditions during which the experimenter
prepared the subject for the next condition. The subject went
through the conditions 10 times in one order and then 10 times in
the reverse order. The condition order was varied randomly among
subjects. The experimenter stood at the subject's side throughout
the recording session and placed the object in the subject's handprior to the start of each 30-s scan. At the end of the scan, thecurrent object was removed from the subject's hand or replaced
another object, according to the condition order.
Because of the position of the subject's head in the gantry of thescanner the subject could not see the objects. Therefore, the task
was performed using only somatosensory feedback. When holding
an object, subjects rested their forearm on a soft support surface,although the wrist remained unsupported. The object with complex
dynamics was an inverted pendulum created by attaching two
130 g weights to a thin plastic ruler at a distance of 25 cm from thecenter of the grip position (Fig. 1). Subjects held the ruler in apinch grip between the thumb and two or three fingers. They were
instructed to keep the weights directly above the hand, i.e., not toallow the inverted pendulum to deviate from vertical. The object
with simple dynamics was a foam ball, which was held with thesame pinch grip. Subjects were instructed to compress the foamball to a point where the force was approximately equal to the force
applied to the inverted pendulum. This amounted to compressing
the ball until the thumb was felt to contact the fingers. Extensive
training was not required to perform the tasks successfully. All
subjects were given sufficient practice with each condition prior to
the experiment to master the control of each object.
In the second experiment, ten subjects performed the same tasks
in the Neuromuscular Control Laboratory at Simon Fraser

Fig. 1. The objects chosen as archetypes of complex and simple dynamics areschematically illustrated. Arrows illustrate where the objects were gripped.

University. They reclined on a hospital stretcher raised toapproximately the same height as the gantry and adopted the same
posture as during the brain imaging. Their right arm was similarly
supported. Acceleration was recorded with a single-axis accelerometer (IC Sensors) fixed at the center of the dorsum of the hand.
The bandwidth of the accelerometer was 0 Hz (DC) to 1000 Hz
with an output of 2.5 V/g. The DC offset varied as the sensitive
axis of the accelerometer rotated with respect to the gravitational
axis. Consequently, the accelerometer registered both translation
and rotation of the hand. EMG was recorded from the first dorsalinterosseus, flexor pollicis brevis, flexor digitorum superficialis,
extensor carpi radialis longus and biceps muscles of the right arm.
The EMG was recorded using custom-built active bipolarelectrodes (13-mm contact spacing), which amplified and bandpass
filtered the signals between 20 Hz (high pass) and 500 Hz (lowpass). EMG signals were then sampled at 2 kHz and stored for later
analysis. Each of the 3 tasks was again performed for 30 s, but thistime the conditions were performed 10 times in one order,
randomly chosen for each subject, but not in reverse. As before,
subjects performed the task without visual feedback. Acceleration
and rms EMG were compared for the simple and complex tasks
using repeated measures ANOVA. Data collected during the first
5 s of each task were not included in the analysis to eliminatetransient effects during the transition between tasks.
In the third experiment, a miniature load cell (LM-2KA-P,
Kyowa) was sandwiched between two thin plastic surfaces andused to measure subjects' grip force. Maximum grip force was firstmeasured. Subjects then performed the simple and complex taskfor 30 s as in the fMRI experiment. The load cell was placed
between the subject's thumb and the object. Because of the widthof the load cell it was not possible to reproduce identical conditions
to the fMRI experiment. However, subjects were still instructed tomatch the grip force under the two conditions. The mean grip force
during each 30-s interval was expressed as a percentage of eachsubject's maximum grip force. Grip force under the two conditions
was compared using a paired t-test. For 5 of these subjects werecorded both the grip force and the position of the top of theflexible ruler using an OPTOTRAK system (Northern Digital)
under the complex condition and computed the cross-correlation
function to determine whether grip force adjustments were predictive or reactive.

390

T.E. Milner et al. / NeuroImage 36 (2007) 388–395

The 1.5-T MRI scanner (Shimadzu-Marconi) in the ATR Brain
Activity Imaging Center was used to obtain blood-oxygenationlevel-dependent (BOLD) contrast functional images. High-resolution
anatomical (structural) images were obtained with a T1-weighted
sequence for each subject. Functional images weighted with theapparent transverse relaxation time (T*2) were obtained with an echoplanar imaging sequence (repetition time= 5.4 s, echo time = 65 ms,
flip angle = 90°). 92 Sequential whole-brain volumes (64 × 64 × 50
voxels at 3-mm isotropic resolution) were acquired in each session.
We used SPM2 software (http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/) toanalyze the images. The first two image volumes were discarded toallow for T1 equilibration. The remaining 90 image volumes wererealigned to the first volume and normalized to the Montreal
Neurological Institute (MNI; Montreal, Canada) reference brain.
The data were spatially smoothed with a Gaussian kernel with a 7mm full width at half maximum (FWHM). Voxels outside of thebrain and in the ventricles were masked. The voxel time series
were temporally smoothed with a Gaussian filter (FWHM of 4 s).
Anatomical regions were identified from normalized T1 structural
images averaged across subjects, using the automated anatomicallabeling method of Tzourio-Mazoyer et al. (2002), and functional
anatomy was determined from the Brodmann map as implemented
in the FWU pick atlas (Maldjian et al., 2003, 2004). We used the
SPM Anatomy toolbox (Eickhoff et al., 2005) to identify finecytoarchitechtonic regions near the central sulcus.
Statistical analysis was performed in two stages using a mixed
effects model. In a first-stage (fixed effect) individual analysis,
conditions were modeled by boxcar functions that had been
convolved with the standard SPM hemodynamic response. They
were used as covariates in a general linear model as implemented
in SPM2 yielding parameter estimates for the conditions for eachvoxel. Images of parameter estimates for the contrasts of interest(complex-simple, simple-rest and complex-rest) were created foreach subject. In the second-stage (random effects) group analysis,
the images were entered into a one-sample t-test across subjects(Penny and Holmes, 2003; Schmitz et al., 2005), and maps of tstatistics for the contrast of interest were derived.
A significance threshold of p < 0.05 (T(16) > 8.14 in the random
effect model, corrected for multiple comparisons) was applied todetermine which brain areas reliably showed significant activity forcomplex-simple, complex-rest and simple-rest contrasts. Althoughrelatively large regions of activation were found for the complexrest and simple-rest contrasts, which were noticeably different, little
evidence of these differences appeared in the complex-simple
contrast. We attribute this to the relatively high significance threshold. Since we were particularly interested in activation differences
in motor areas, we defined motor regions of interest (ROI) based on
the union of motor regions activated in the complex-rest andsimple-rest contrasts. Thus, these motor ROIs included all motor
regions where significant activation was observed in either thecomplex-rest or simple-rest contrast. We then computed thepercentage change in the BOLD signal under the complex condition
relative to rest and under the simple condition relative to rest. t-tests,
corrected for multiple comparisons, were then performed todetermine whether the change in BOLD signal was greater under
the complex than the simple condition.
Results
We report regions where activation in clusters of 5 or more
voxels (40 mm3) reached the significance threshold, using therandom effects model, corrected for multiple comparisons(p < 0.05). For the complex-simple contrast, we found small
regions of significant activation in two regions normally associatedwith processing of somatosensory activity, namely contralateralsomatosensory cortex (SI, area 2) and ipsilateral (right) Brodmannarea 40. We found significant activation of the contralateral
primary motor cortex (MI), primary somatosensory cortex (SI, area
3) and ipsilateral anterior cerebellum for both the simple-rest andcomplex-rest contrasts. In addition, the ipsilateral posterior cerebellum, dorsal premotor cortex (area 6), contralateral thalamus,
contralateral insula and contralateral SII were significantly activated in the complex-rest contrast (Fig. 2, Table 1). Note that thecontiguous region identified as MI in the Table 1, is primarily MI,
but also includes about 40 voxels that fall in area 3 for bothcomplex-rest and simple-rest contrasts and about 30 voxels that fallin area 6 for the complex-rest contrast only.
The most striking finding was the difference in the size of theclusters of significant activation in the cerebellum. In the simplerest contrast, there was only a 15-voxel cluster in the anterior
cerebellum where activity reached the significance threshold(p = 0.021 at the focus) and none in the posterior cerebellum. On
the other hand, in the complex-rest contrast, the cluster in theposterior cerebellum alone was 73 voxels (p = 0.001 at theactivation maximum) while the cluster in the anterior cerebellum
was about four times larger still (p < 0.0001 at the focus). Thus, notonly was the cerebellum much more strongly activated under thecomplex condition, but there were two very distinct, widely
separated activation foci (Table 1).
Since we did not find any motor region where activation reached
the significance threshold for the complex-simple contrast, despite
the large differences in the size of the activated regions of thecerebellum, we decided to compare the percentage change in BOLD
signal intensity in motor regions activated under the two conditions.
Three motor regions were identified as being significantly activatedin either the complex-rest or simple-rest contrasts. These were MI,
cerebellum and area 6. Because activated regions in the anterior andposterior cerebellum were unconnected and widely separated, we
treated them as separate ROIs in the analysis. The mean intensity of
the BOLD signal over the defined ROIs for all subjects combined
was compared between complex and simple conditions (Fig. 3). We
tested the null hypothesis that the percentage signal change would
not be greater, relative to rest, for the complex than the simple
condition. Because there were four ROIs, we used t-tests corrected
for multiple comparisons (p < 0.01). We found that only for the
cerebellar regions was the null hypothesis rejected, i.e., activity wassignificantly greater under the complex than the simple condition(p = 0.0016 for the anterior region and p < 0.0001 for the posterior
region). The null hypothesis could not be rejected for MI (p = 0.16)
or area 6 (p = 0.017).
We were able to demonstrate that muscle activation was wellmatched under the two conditions. No significant difference in therms EMG was found for any of the five muscles (p > 0.4; Fig 4A).
The acceleration was analyzed by determining the signal power in 3
specific frequency bands, 0–1.5 Hz, 1.5–6 Hz and 8–14 Hz, where
distinct peaks were identified under the simple condition (Fig. 4B).
There was no significant difference in the signal power under thesimple and complex conditions in the 0–1.5 Hz (p > 0.4) and 8- to
14-Hz bands (p > 0.1). However, there was significantly moresignal power in the 1.5- to 6-Hz band under the simple than thecomplex condition (p = 0.022). This band was then separated into
three bands of equal width and reanalyzed. Only in the 3- to 4.5-Hz

T.E. Milner et al. / NeuroImage 36 (2007) 388–395

391

Fig. 2. (A) Complex-rest contrast. Statistical parametrical maps (SPMt) illustrate activated regions (p < 0.05, random effect model, corrected for multiple
comparisons). Slices containing activity peaks listed in Table 1 are shown with crosshairs indicating the coordinates shown under each panel. Insets identify areasof sensorimotor cortex according to the maximum probability maps based on cytoarchitectonic studies (SPM anatomy tool box; Eickhoff et al., 2005). (B)Simple-rest contrast. (C) Complex-simple contrast.

band was there a significant difference, with more signal power
under the simple than the complex condition (p = 0.014). This
indicates that motion in the 3- to 4.5-Hz frequency band was
suppressed under the complex condition. It may be somewhat
surprising that there was not more motion of the hand under thecomplex than the simple condition. However, it should be noted thatthe orientation of the inverted pendulum was controlled principallyby a rolling action between the thumb and fingers (rather thanrotation of the wrist), which was not detected by the accelerometer.

The mean grip force of the 10 subjects measured under thecomplex condition was 13% (SD 5.8) of maximum grip force
whereas that measured under the simple condition was 15% (SD 6.7)of maximum grip force. The two were not significantly different(p = 0.34). We computed the cross-correlation function of grip force
versus position of the tip of the ruler under the complex condition.
The mean of the cross-correlation peak was 0.44 (SD 0.20),
indicating that grip force and ruler motion were moderately
correlated. The peak occurred at a mean of −6.8 ms (SD 20), i.e.,

392

T.E. Milner et al. / NeuroImage 36 (2007) 388–395

Table 1
Manipulation task contrasts
Anatomical region

Simple-rest
Left MI
Right anterior
cerebellum(lobule V/VI)
Complex-rest
Left MI
Right anterior
cerebellum(lobule V/VI)
Right posterior
cerebellum(lobule VIII)
Left thalamus
Left anterior insula
Left SI (area 3)
Left SII
Complex-simple
Left SI (area 2)
Right Brodmannarea 40a

MNI coordinatesPeakz-scoreClustersize aP value

48
− 18

6.27
5.21

104
15

<0.0001
0.021

− 20
− 56

56
− 20

5.82
6.27

166
288

0.001
<0.0001

14

− 62

− 54

5.83

73

0.001

− 14
− 44
− 34
− 50

− 22
0
− 32
− 26

6
4
60
14

5.77
5.58
5.56
5.45

22
22
14
6

0.001
0.003
0.003
0.006

− 40
68

− 42
− 26

60
20

5.55
5.34

6
6

0.003
0.01

x

y

z

− 42
18

− 22
− 54

− 36
20

Number of 8-mm3 voxels in cluster.

grip force adjustments occurred before motion of the tip of the ruler,indicating that they were predictive rather than reactive. We also
computed the cross-correlation function of both grip force versus
velocity and grip force versus acceleration of the tip of the ruler. In
neither case did we find that the peak grip force lagged motion,
indicating that the grip force responses could not be attributed tovelocity or acceleration dependent reflex activity. Furthermore, themean values of the cross-correlation peaks were 0.07 and 0.02 forvelocity and acceleration, respectively, indicating that the anticipatory changes in grip force were related to maintaining the positionof the ruler rather than controlling its motion.

failure to find a significant difference in the change in BOLD signal
intensity, suggest that MI was activated to the same extent underboth conditions and is, therefore, less implicated in representation of
the task dynamics than the cerebellum.
The significant activation of area 2 in the complex-simple
contrast underlines the importance of the integration of tactile andproprioceptive information in successfully dealing with the complex
dynamics of the flexible ruler. Ehrsson et al. (2001, 2003) andKuhtz-Buschbeck et al. (2001) identified a number of regions infrontal and parietal cortex which were activated in relation todifferent aspects of manipulation with precision grip. The study by
Kuhtz-Buschbeck et al. (2001) was the most similar to our study inthat subjects continuously maintained the same grip force for about
40 s, although grip initiation, lifting of the object, setting the object
down and releasing the grip were also part of the task. When subjects
used a firm grip the contralateral primary sensorimotor areas,
premotor areas (PMd and PMv) and Brodmann area 7 were activatedalong with Brodmann area 40 bilaterally. The cerebellum, however,
was outside their scanning range. We did not find significant
activation in premotor areas or area 7. The main reason for this may
be that their task would have involved decision and planning phases
for initiating and releasing the grip, which were absent in our task.
Bilateral activation of SII together with insula, Brodmann area
40 and parietal association areas has been shown to be important intactile object recognition (Reed et al., 2004). These regions are
believed to integrate somatosensory information to provide a
coherent image of an object appropriate for cognitive action. SII
receives both cutaneous and proprioceptive input from peripheral
sensory receptors (Fitzgerald et al., 2004) and projects to MI,among other regions (Friedman et al., 1986). Thus, SII and theadjacent connected areas (insula and area 40) likely provide
integrated feedback to MI. These areas may perform higher levelprocessing than SI, for example, integrating proprioceptive andtactile information in the context of the flexibility of the ruler toproduce awareness of the direction in which the ruler is leaning andits direction of motion.

Discussion
The complex-simple contrast revealed significant activation only
in areas normally associated with processing of somatosensory
information. Regions such as SI and thalamus, which were found tohave significant activity in the complex-rest contrast, have beenpreviously shown to be activated during control of precision grasp.
Somatosensory association areas such as SII, Brodmann area 40 andinsula, which were found to have significant activation in thecomplex-rest or complex-simple contrast, are likely involved in the
integration of somatosensory information when grasping andstabilizing the inverted pendulum. Comparison of the complex-rest
and simple-rest contrasts and analysis of the change in BOLD signal
intensity, relative to rest, indicate that the ipsilateral cerebellum wasalso selectively activated when dynamic control of grasp was needed
to balance a flexible inverted pendulum compared to the static grasp
needed to squeeze a foam ball. Based on the studies of Blakemore etal. (1998, 2001), it is likely that the selective activation of somatosensory areas and cerebellum are related to the ability of thecerebellum to predict the sensory consequences of motor commands
under the two conditions. The similarity in the size of the activatedregions in MI in the complex-rest and simple-rest contrasts and theFig. 3. Inter-subject means for percentage change in BOLD signal intensity,
relative to rest, recorded in motor areas (MI, area 6, anterior cerebellum andposterior cerebellum) for complex-rest (green) and simple-rest (red)conditions. The significance level is corrected for multiple comparisons(p < 0.01). Significant differences are indicated by asterisks. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader isreferred to the web version of this article.)

T.E. Milner et al. / NeuroImage 36 (2007) 388–395

393

Fig. 4. (A) Mean rms EMG for simple (red) and complex (green) tasks for biceps, extensor carpi radialis longus (ECRL), flexor digitorum superficialis (FDS),
flexor pollicis brevis (FPB) and first dorsal interosseus (1DI) muscles of the 10 subjects. (B) Mean power spectral density function from 0 to 25 Hz for simple(red) and complex (green) tasks for the 10 subjects. (C) Mean integrated power of the 10 subjects for the frequency bands delimited by solid vertical lines in panel
B. (D) Mean integrated power of the 10 subjects for the frequency bands delimited by dashed-dotted vertical lines in panel B. Error bars represent standard
deviations in all plots. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

The regions of activity in the anterior and posterior cerebellum,
identified in the complex-rest contrast, closely matched thosedescribed in fMRI studies of cerebellar somatotopy for movementsof the fingers (Rijntjes et al., 1999; Grodd et al., 2001) and tactile
stimulation of the fingers (Bushara et al., 2001). These regions
were activated under the complex condition, but much less under
the simple condition. The anterior region matches the location ofcommon activation found in our previous studies of tasks
involving manipulation of a grasped object (Kawato et al., 2003;
Milner et al., 2006). Bilateral activation in this region of thecerebellum has previously been shown to be associated withtracking error, as well as acquisition of an internal model of thekinematics of a visuomotor task (Imamizu et al., 2000, 2003). Ourtask did not involve vision, which likely accounts for ipsilateralrather than bilateral activation of this region. Activation of theposterior cerebellum, exclusively on the ipsilateral side, has notbeen reported previously in studies of tasks involving manipulationof objects in the absence of vision, although deactivation has beenreported in a contralateral region (Kawato et al., 2003), but with afocus slightly more lateral and posterior to the region which we394

T.E. Milner et al. / NeuroImage 36 (2007) 388–395

identified. Because both of these regions of the cerebellum havebeen shown to receive strong somatosensory inputs (Bushara et al.,2001) their activation under the complex condition may be due toproprioceptive perception of error in the position of the flexible
inverted pendulum or neural representation of the task dynamics.
The difference in cerebellar activation between the complex andsimple conditions could not be attributed to differences in the meanlevel of muscle activation, i.e., differences in effort, since the rms
EMG of finger, wrist and elbow muscles did not differ. A likely
explanation is that a larger network of cerebellar neurons wasneeded to transform somatosensory information about the orientation of the inverted pendulum into motor commands to keep it
upright than to apply a constant force to the foam ball. Cutaneous
information about contact between the thumb and fingers would
have been sufficient to compute the necessary levels of muscle
activation when squeezing the ball. To balance the flexible inverted
pendulum a much more complex transformation of sensory input tomotor output would have been needed. The torque applied by the
inverted pendulum to the hand would provide information about its
orientation. This information would then be transformed into commands to the hand and wrist muscles, where the change in activationof specific muscles would be determined by the direction andmagnitude of the sensed torque. The object was moved principallyby “rolling” action of the thumb and fingers. Consequently theactivity of thumb and finger muscles served both to grasp and apply
torque to the object. To keep the wrist stationary, the activity ofwrist muscles had to be modulated to balance torque arising fromthumb and finger muscles crossing the wrist and to increase joint
stiffness for stability. Because subjects were instructed to hold theinverted pendulum in a position of unstable equilibrium, momentto-moment changes in muscle activation were needed to control its
orientation. The cerebellum has been implicated in both feedback
and feedforward control of movement. In the former case, it
regulates feedback gains (MacKay and Murphy, 1979; Kawato etal., 1987) and in the latter it represents the system dynamics(Nezafat et al., 2001). Subjects reduced involuntary movement in
the 3- to 4.5-Hz range under the complex condition compared to thesimple condition. The natural frequency of the elbow in flexion/
extension under the conditions of our experiment would beapproximately 3 Hz. Although the natural frequency of the inverted
pendulum was an order of magnitude lower than the natural
frequency of the elbow, any movement of the elbow would havebeen transferred to the inverted pendulum, acting to destabilize it.
Therefore, attenuation of the 3- to 4.5-Hz movement can beconsidered as an active control process important to stabilizing theinverted pendulum. The finding that changes in grip force arecorrelated with the position of the inverted pendulum and that they
are predictive, is consistent with the idea that increased activation of
the cerebellum under the complex condition was related tofeedforward control of the position of the tip of the flexible ruler.
This suggests the use of an internal model of the object's interaction
dynamics to control its position. Overall, our results are consistent
with the view that considerably more computational resources weredevoted to the transformation of afferent input to motor output tograsp the object with complex dynamics than the object with simple
dynamics and that the neural substrates for the representation of thetask dynamics are localized in the cerebellum. Since we found little
difference in the size of the activated regions in MI and no
significant difference in the change in BOLD signal intensity under
the complex and simple conditions, it is unlikely that differences intask dynamics were represented in MI.

The finding that somatosensory regions were significantly
activated only under the complex condition cannot be attributed todifferences in the amount of somatosensory input. The input fromcutaneous mechanoreceptors should have been similar under the two
conditions, given that the grip force was not significantly different
under the two conditions and that the texture of the foam ball was
rougher than that of plastic ruler. Instead, we interpret this finding in
the light of recent work by Blakemore et al. (1998, 2001) who
showed that activation of somatosensory areas is reduced whentactile stimulation is self-produced than when it is externallyproduced. They proposed that the cerebellum generates a forward
model of the sensory consequences of motor commands, which
produces gating of somatosensory activity. Under the simple
condition, we can consider squeezing the foam ball to result intactile stimulation that is self-produced. Under the complex
condition, tactile stimulation originated from gripping the ruler(self-produced) and from bending of the ruler by the weights(externally produced). Thus, under the simple condition we could
expect significant attenuation of sensory activity in somatosensory
areas. In contrast, under the complex condition, stimulation of
cutaneous and muscle mechanoreceptors produced by bending of
the ruler could not have been attenuated to the same extent unless
subjects had a very accurate forward model of the complex dynamics
of the flexible ruler. This would explain why significant activation ofsomatosensory areas was found in the complex-rest and complexsimple contrasts.
Our results suggest that the cerebellum is differentially
activated to control grasp while holding an object with complex
dynamics compared to one with simple dynamics. We proposethat the cerebellar activity represented the implementation of
feedback processes used to stabilize the arm and control thefingers so as to keep an inverted pendulum in a vertical orientation. Because of the similarity in the activation of MI under thesimple and complex conditions, it is unlikely that the neural representation of the task dynamics is localized in MI. Somatosensory association areas such as SII, Brodmann area 40 and insula,which were selectively activated under the complex condition, arelikely involved in the integration of somatosensory information in
the context of physical attributes of the object, which in this casemight include its flexibility. Under the simple condition,
somatosensory activity was likely attenuated because tactile
stimulation was self-produced rather than externally produced(Blakemore et al., 1998, 2001).

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by NICT and NSERC. We thank S.
Masuda for assisting in the second experiment.
References
Blakemore, S-J., Wolpert, D.M., Frith, C.D., 1998. Central cancellation ofself-produced tickle sensation. Nat. Neurosci. 1, 635–640.
Blakemore, S-J., Frith, C.D., Wolpert, D.M., 2001. The cerebellum is
involved in predicting the sensory consequences of action. NeuroReport
12, 1879–1884.
Bushara, K.O., Wheat, J.M., Khan, A., Mock, B.J., Turski, P.A., Sorenson,
J., Brooks, B.R., 2001. Multiple tactile maps in the human cerebellum.
NeuroReport 12, 2483–2486.
Dai, T.H., Liu, J.Z., Sahgal, V., Brown, R.W., Yue, G.H., 2001. RelationshipT.E. Milner et al. / NeuroImage 36 (2007) 388–395
between muscle output and functional MRI-measured brain activation.
Exp. Brain Res. 140, 290–300.
Dettmers, C., Connelly, A., Stephan, K.M., Turner, R., Friston, K.J.,
Frackowiak, R.S., Gadian, D.G., 1996. Quantitative comparison offunctional magnetic resonance imaging with positron emission tomography using a force-related paradigm. NeuroImage 4, 201–209.
Ehrsson, H.H., Fagergren, A., Forssberg, H., 2001. Differential frontoparietal activation depending on force used in a precision grip task: an
fMRI study. J. Neurophysiol. 85, 2613–2623.
Ehrsson, H.H., Fagergren, A., Johansson, R.S., Forssberg, H., 2003.
Evidence for the involvement of the posterior parietal cortex incoordination of fingertip forces for grasp stability in manipulation.
J. Neurophysiol. 90, 2978–2986.
Eickhoff, S.B., Stephan, K.E., Mohlberg, H., Grefkes, C., Fink, G.R.,
Amunts, K., Zilles, K., 2005. A new SPM toolbox for combining
probabilistic cytoarchitectonic maps and functional imaging data.
NeuroImage 25, 1325–1335.
Fitzgerald, P.J., Lane, J.W., Thakur, P.H., Hsiao, S.S., 2004. Receptive field
properties of the macaque second somatosensory cortex: evidence formultiple functional representations. J. Neurosci. 24, 11193–11204.
Flanagan, J.R., Wing, A.M., 1997. The role of internal models in motion
planning and control: evidence from grip force adjustments during
movements of hand-held loads. J. Neurosci. 17, 1519–1528.
Friedman, D.P., Murray, E.A., O'Neill, J.B., Mishkin, M., 1986. Corticalconnections of the somatosensory fields of the lateral sulcus ofmacaques: evidence for a corticolimbic pathway for touch. J. Comp.
Neurol. 252, 323–347.
Grodd, W., Hülsmann, E., Lotze, M., Wildgruber, D., Erb, M., 2001.
Sensorimotor mapping of the human cerebellum: fMRI evidence ofsomatotopic organization. Hum. Brain Mapp. 13, 55–73.
Imamizu, H., Miyauchi, S., Tamada, T., Sasaki, Y., Takino, R., Putz, B.,
Yoshioka, T., Kawato, M., 2000. Human cerebellar activity reflecting an
acquired internal model of a new tool. Nature 403, 192–195.
Imamizu, H., Kuroda, T., Miyauchi, S., Yoshioka, T., Kawato, M., 2003.
Modular organization of internal models of tools in the humancerebellum. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 5461–5466.
Kawato, M., 1999. Internal models for motor control and trajectory
planning. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 9, 718–727.
Kawato, M., Furukawa, K., Suzuki, R., 1987. A hierarchical neural-networkmodel for control and learning of voluntary movement. Biol. Cybern. 57,
169–185.
Kawato, M., Kuroda, T., Imamizu, H., Nakano, E., Miyauchi, S., Yoshika,T., 2003. Internal forward models in the cerebellum: fMRI study on grip
force and load force coupling. Prog. Brain Res. 142, 171–188.
Kelly, R.M., Strick, P.L., 2003. Cerebellar loops with motor cortex and
prefrontal cortex of a nonhuman primate. J. Neurosci. 23, 8432–8444.

395

Kuhtz-Buschbeck, J.P., Ehrsson, H.H., Forssberg, H., 2001. Human brain
activity in the control of fine static precision grip forces: an fMRI study.
Eur. J. Neurosci. 14, 382–390.
Li, C.S., Padoa-Schioppa, C., Bizzi, E., 2001. Neuronal correlates of motor
performance and motor learning in the primary motor cortex of monkeys
adapting to an external force field. Neuron 30, 593–607.
MacKay, W.A., Murphy, J.T., 1979. Cerebellar modulation of reflex gain.
Prog. Neurobiol. 13, 361–417.
Maldjian, J.A., Laurienti, P.J., Burdette, J.B., Kraft, R.A., 2003. An
automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based
interrogation of fMRI data sets. NeuroImage 19, 1233–1239.
Maldjian, J.A., Laurienti, P.J., Burdette, J.B., 2004. Precentral gyrus
discrepancy in electronic versions of the Talairach atlas. NeuroImage 21,
450–455.
Milner, T.E., Franklin, D.W., Imamizu, H., Kawato, M., 2006. Central
representation of dynamics when manipulating handheld objects.
J. Neurophysiol. 95, 893–901.
Nezafat, R., Shadmehr, R., Holcolmb, H.H., 2001. Long-term adaptation to
dynamics of reaching movements: a PET study. Exp. Brain Res. 140,
66–76.
Padoa-Schioppa, C., Li, C.S., Bizzi, E., 2004. Neuronal activity in the
supplementary motor area of monkeys adapting to a new dynamic
environment. J. Neurophysiol. 91, 449–473.
Penny, W.D., Holmes, A.J., 2003. Random-effect analysis, In: Frackowiak,
R.S.J., Friston, K.J., Frith, C., Dolan, R., Price, C.J., Zeki, S., Ashburner,
J., Penny, W.D. (Eds.), Human Brain Function, 2nd edition. Academic
ress, London, pp. 843–850.
Reed, C.L., Shoham, S., Halgren, E., 2004. Neural substrates of tactile
object recognition: an fMRI study. Hum. Brain Mapp. 21, 236–246.
Rijntjes, M., Buechel, C., Kiebel, S., Weiller, C., 1999. Multiple somatotopic representations in the human cerebellum. NeuroReport 10,
3653–3658.
Sakai, S.T., Inase, M., Tanji, J., 2002. The relationship between MI and
SMA afferents and cerebellar and pallidal efferents in the macaquemonkey. Somatosens. Motor Res. 19, 139–148.
Schmitz, C., Jenmalm, P., Ehrsson, H.H., Forssberg, H., 2005. Brain activity
during predictable and unpredictable weight changes when lifting
objects. J. Neurophysiol. 93, 1498–1509.
Thickbroom, G.W., Phillips, B.A., Morris, I., Byrnes, M.L., Mastaglia, F.L.,
1998. Isometric force-related activity in sensorimotor cortex measured
with functional MRI. Exp. Brain Res. 121, 59–64.
Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Landeau, B., Papathanassiou, D., Crivello, F., Etard,O., Delcroix, N., Mazoyer, B., Joliet, M., 2002. Automated anatomicallabeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomicalparcellation of the MNI-MRI single subject brain. NeuroImage 15,273–289.