Disentangling acute motor deficits and adaptive responses evoked by the loss of cerebellar output

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In a previous work, Prut and colleagues had shown that during reaching, high-frequency stimulation of the cerebellar outputs resulted in reduced reach velocity. Moreover, they showed that the stimulation produced reaches that deviated from a straight line, with the shoulder and elbow movements becoming less coordinated. In this report, they extend their previous work by the addition of modeling results that investigate the relationship between the kinematic changes and torques produced at the joints. The results show that the slowing is not due to reductions in interaction torques alone, as the reductions in velocity occur even for movements that are single joints. More interestingly, the experiment revealed evidence for the decomposition of the reaching movement, as well as an increase in the variance of the trajectory.

Strengths:

This is a rare experiment in a non-human primate that assessed the importance of cerebellar input to the motor cortex during reaching.

Weaknesses:

My major concerns are described below.

If I understand the task design correctly, the monkeys did not need to stop their hand at the target. I think this design may be suboptimal for investigating the role of the cerebellum in control of reaching because a number of earlier works have found that the cerebellum's contributions are particularly significant as the movement ends, i.e., stopping at the target. For example, in mice, interposed nucleus neurons tend to be most active near the end of the reach that requires extension, and their activation produces flexion forces during the reach (Becker and Person 2019). Indeed, the inactivation of interposed neurons that project to the thalamus results in overshooting of reaching movements (Low et al. 2018). Recent work has also found that many Purkinje cells show a burst-pause pattern as the reach nears its endpoint, and stimulation of the mossy fibers tends to disrupt endpoint control (Calame et al. 2023). Thus, the fact that the current paper has no data regarding endpoint control of the reach is puzzling to me.

Because stimulation continued after the cursor had crossed the target, it is interesting to ask whether this disruption had any effects on the movements that were task-irrelevant. The reason for asking this is because we have found that whereas during task-relevant eye or tongue movements the Purkinje cells are strongly modulated, the modulations are much more muted when similar movements are performed but are task-irrelevant (Pi et al., PNAS 2024; Hage et al. Biorxiv 2024). Thus, it is interesting to ask whether the effects of stimulation were global and affected all movements, or were the effects primarily concerned with the task-relevant movements.

If the schematic in Figure 1 is accurate, it is difficult for me to see how any of the reaching movements can be termed single joint. In the paper, T1 is labeled as a single joint, and T2-T4 are labeled as dual-joint. The authors should provide data to justify this.

Because at least part of this work was previously analyzed and published, information should be provided regarding which data are new.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript asks an interesting and important question: what part of 'cerebellar' motor dysfunction is an acute control problem vs a compensatory strategy to the acute control issue? The authors use a cerebellar 'blockade' protocol, consisting of high-frequency stimuli applied to the cerebellar peduncle which is thought to interfere with outflow signals. This protocol was applied in monkeys performing center outreaching movements and has been published from this laboratory in several preceding studies. I found the take-home-message broadly convincing and clarifying - that cerebellar block reduces muscle activation acutely particularly in movements that involve multiple joints and therefore invoke interaction torques, and that movements progressively slow down to in effect 'compensate' for these acute tone deficits. The manuscript was generally well written, and the data was clear, convincing, and novel. My comments below highlight suggestions to improve clarity and sharpen some arguments.

Primary comments:

(1) Torque vs. tone: Is it known whether this type of cerebellar blockade is reducing muscle tone or inducing any type of acute co-contraction that could influence limb velocity through mechanisms different than 'atonia'? If so, the authors should discuss this information in the discussion section starting around line 336, and clarify that this motivates (if it does) the focus on 'torques' rather than muscle activation. Relatedly, besides the fact that there are joints involved, is there a reason there is so much emphasis on torque per se? If the muscle is deprived of sufficient drive, it would seem that it would be more straightforward to conceptualize the deficit as one of insufficient timed drive to a set of muscles than joint force. Some text better contextualizing the choices made here would be sufficient to address this concern. I found statements like those in the introduction "hand velocity was low initially, reflecting a primary muscle torque deficit" to be lacking in substance. Either that statement is self-evident or the alternative was not made clear. Finally, emphasize that it is a loss of self-generated torque at the shoulder that accounts for the velocity deficits. At times the phrasing makes it seem that there is a loss of some kind of passive torque.

(2) Please clarify some of the experimental metrics: Ln 94 RESULTS. The success rate is used as a primary behavioral readout, but what constitutes success is not clearly defined in the methods. In addition to providing a clear definition in the methods section, it would also be helpful for the authors to provide a brief list of criteria used to determine a 'successful' movement in the results section before the behavioral consequences of stimulation are described. In particular, the time and positional error requirements should be clear.

(3) Based on the polar plot in Figure 1c, it seemed odd to consider Targets 1-4 outward and 5-8 inward movements, when 1 and 5 are side-to-side. Is there a rationale for this grouping or might results be cleaner by cleanly segregating outward (targets 2-4) and inward (targets 6-8) movements? Indeed, by Figure 3 where interaction torques are measured, this grouping would seem to align with the hypothesis much more cleanly since it is with T2,T3,and T4 where clear coupling torques deficits are seen with cerebellar block.

4. I did not follow Figure 3d. Both the figure axis labels and the description in the main text were difficult to follow. Furthermore, the color code per animal made me question whether the linear regression across the entire dataset was valid, or would be better performed within animal, and the regressions summarized across animals. The authors should look again at this section and figure.

(5) Line 206+ The rationale for examining movement decomposition with a cerebellar block is presented as testing the role of the cerebellum in timing. Yet it is not spelled out what movement decomposition and trajectory variability have to do with motor timing per se.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In their manuscript, "Disentangling acute motor deficits and adaptive responses evoked by the loss of cerebellar output," Sinha and colleagues aim to identify distinct causes of motor impairments seen when perturbing cerebellar circuits. This goal is an important one, given the diversity of movement-related phenotypes in patients with cerebellar lesions or injuries, which are especially difficult to dissect given the chronic nature of the circuit damage. To address this goal, the authors use high-frequency stimulation (HFS) of the superior cerebellar peduncle in monkeys performing reaching movements. HFS provides an attractive approach for transiently disrupting cerebellar function previously published by this group. First, they found a reduction in hand velocities during reaching, which was more pronounced for outward versus inward movements. By modeling inverse dynamics, they find evidence that shoulder muscle torques are especially affected. Next, the authors examine the temporal evolution of movement phenotypes over successive blocks of HFS trials. Using this analysis, they find that in addition to the acute, specific effects on muscle torques in early HFS trials, there was an additional progressive reduction in velocity during later trials, which they interpret as an adaptive response to the inability to effectively compensate for interaction torques during cerebellar block. Finally, the authors examine movement decomposition and trajectory, finding that even when low-velocity reaches are matched to controls, HFS produces abnormally decomposed movements and higher than expected variability in trajectory.

Strengths:

Overall, this work provides important insight into how perturbation of cerebellar circuits can elicit diverse effects on movement across multiple timescales.

The HFS approach provides temporal resolution and enables analysis that would be hard to perform in the context of chronic lesions or slow pharmacological interventions. Thus, this study describes an important advance over prior methods of circuit disruption, and their approach can be used as a framework for future studies that delve deeper into how additional aspects of sensorimotor control are disrupted (e.g., response to limb perturbations).

In addition, the authors use well-designed behavioral approaches and analysis methods to distinguish immediate from longer-term adaptive effects of HFS on behavior. Moreover, inverse dynamics modeling provides important insight into how movements with different kinematics and muscle dynamics might be differentially disrupted by cerebellar perturbation.

Weaknesses:

The argument that there are acute and adaptive effects to perturbing cerebellar circuits is compelling, but there seems to be a lost opportunity to leverage the fast and reversible nature of the perturbations to further test this idea and strengthen the interpretation. Specifically, the authors could have bolstered this argument by looking at the effects of terminating HFS - one might hypothesize that the acute impacts on muscle torques would quickly return to baseline in the absence of HFS, whereas the longer-term adaptive component would persist in the form of aftereffects during the 'washout' period. As is, the reversible nature of the perturbation seems underutilized in testing the authors' ideas.

The analysis showing that there is a gradual reduction in velocity during what the authors call an adaptive phase is convincing. That said, the argument is made that this is due to difficulty in compensating for interaction torques. Even if the inward targets (i.e., targets 6-8) do not show a deficit during the acute phase, these targets still have significant interaction torques (Figure 3c). Given the interpretation of the data as presented, it is not clear why disruption of movement during the adaptive phase would not be seen for these targets as well since they also have large interaction torques. Moreover, it is difficult to delve into this issue in more detail, as the analyses in Figures 4 and 5 omit the inward targets.

The text in the Introduction and in the prior work developing the HFS approach overstates the selectivity of the perturbations. First, there is an emphasis on signals transmitted to the neocortex. As the authors state several times in the Discussion, there are many subcortical targets of the cerebellar nuclei as well, and thus it is difficult to disentangle target-specific behavioral effects using this approach. Second, the superior cerebellar peduncle contains both cerebellar outputs and inputs (e.g., spinocerebellar). Therefore, the selectivity in perturbing cerebellar output feels overstated. Readers would benefit from a more agnostic claim that HFS affects cerebellar communication with the rest of the nervous system, which would not affect the major findings of the study.

The text implies that increased movement decomposition and variability must be due to noise. However, this assumption is not tested. It is possible that the impairments observed are caused by disrupted commands, independent of whether these command signals are noisy. In other words, commands could be low noise but still faulty.

Throughout the text, the use of the term 'feedforward control' seems unnecessary. To dig into the feedforward component of the deficit, the authors could quantify the trajectory errors only at the earliest time points (e.g., in Figure 5d), but even with this analysis, it is difficult to disentangle feedforward- and feedback-mediated effects when deficits are seen throughout the reach. While outside the scope of this study, it would be interesting to explore how feedback responses to limb perturbation are affected in control versus HFS conditions. However, as is, these questions are not explored, and the claim of impaired feedforward control feels overstated.

The terminology 'single-joint' movement is a bit confusing. At a minimum, it would be nice to show kinematics during different target reaches to demonstrate that certain targets are indeed single joint movements. More of an issue, however, is that it seems like these are not actually 'single-joint' movements. For example, Figure 2c shows that target 1 exhibits high elbow and shoulder torques, but in the text, T1 is described as a 'single-joint' reach (e.g. lines 155-156). The point that I think the authors are making is that these targets have low interaction torques. If that is the case, the terminology should be changed or clarified to avoid confusion.

The labels in Figure 3d are confusing and could use more explanation in the figure legend.

In Figure 3d, it is stated that data from all monkeys is pooled. However, if there is a systematic bias between animals, this could generate spurious correlations. Were correlations also calculated for each animal separately to confirm the same trend between velocity and coupling torques holds for each animal?

In Table S1, it would be nice to see target-specific success rates. The data would suggest that targets with the highest interaction torques will have the largest reduction in success rates, especially during later HFS trials. Is this the case?

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In a previous work, Prut and colleagues had shown that during reaching, high-frequency stimulation of the cerebellar outputs resulted in reduced reach velocity. Moreover, they showed that the stimulation produced reaches that deviated from a straight line, with the shoulder and elbow movements becoming less coordinated. In this report, they extend their previous work by the addition of modeling results that investigate the relationship between the kinematic changes and torques produced at the joints. The results show that the slowing is not due to reductions in interaction torques alone, as the reductions in velocity occur even for movements that are single joints. More interestingly, the experiment revealed evidence for the decomposition of the reaching movement, as well as an increase in the variance of the trajectory.

Strengths:

This is a rare experiment in a non-human primate that assessed the importance of cerebellar input to the motor cortex during reaching.

Weaknesses:

My major concerns are described below.

If I understand the task design correctly, the monkeys did not need to stop their hand at the target. I think this design may be suboptimal for investigating the role of the cerebellum in control of reaching because a number of earlier works have found that the cerebellum's contributions are particularly significant as the movement ends, i.e., stopping at the target. For example, in mice, interposed nucleus neurons tend to be most active near the end of the reach that requires extension, and their activation produces flexion forces during the reach (Becker and Person 2019). Indeed, the inactivation of interposed neurons that project to the thalamus results in overshooting of reaching movements (Low et al. 2018). Recent work has also found that many Purkinje cells show a burst-pause pattern as the reach nears its endpoint, and stimulation of the mossy fibers tends to disrupt endpoint control (Calame et al. 2023). Thus, the fact that the current paper has no data regarding endpoint control of the reach is puzzling to me.

We appreciate the reviewer’s point that cerebellar contributions can be particularly critical near the endpoint of a reach. In our current task design, monkeys were indeed required to hold at the target briefly—100 ms for Monkeys S and P, and 150 ms for Monkeys C and M—before receiving a reward. However, given the size of the targets and the velocity of movements, it often happened that the monkey didn’t have to stop its movement to obtain a reward. Importantly, we relaxed the task’s requirements (by increasing target size and reducing temporal constraints) to allow monkeys to perform the task under cerebellar block conditions as we found that the strict criteria in these conditions yield a low success rate. This design is suboptimal for studying endpoint accuracy which, as we now appreciate, is an important aspect of cerebellar control. In our revision, we will clarify these aspects of the task design and acknowledge that it is sub-optimal for examining the role of cerebellum in end-point control. Future studies will explicitly address this point more carefully.

Because stimulation continued after the cursor had crossed the target, it is interesting to ask whether this disruption had any effects on the movements that were task-irrelevant. The reason for asking this is because we have found that whereas during task-relevant eye or tongue movements the Purkinje cells are strongly modulated, the modulations are much more muted when similar movements are performed but are task-irrelevant (Pi et al., PNAS 2024; Hage et al. Biorxiv 2024). Thus, it is interesting to ask whether the effects of stimulation were global and affected all movements, or were the effects primarily concerned with the task-relevant movements.

This is a very interesting suggestion. Although our main analysis focused on target-directed reaching movements, we have the data for the between-trial movements under continuous stimulation (e.g., return to center movements). In our revised supplementary material, we will examine the effect of cerebellar block on endpoint velocities in inter-trial movements versus task-related movements.

If the schematic in Figure 1 is accurate, it is difficult for me to see how any of the reaching movements can be termed single joint. In the paper, T1 is labeled as a single joint, and T2-T4 are labeled as dual-joint. The authors should provide data to justify this.

The is reviewer right and movements to all targets engages shoulder and elbow but the single joint participation varied in a target-specific manner. In the manuscript, we used the term “single-joint” to indicate a target direction in which one joint remains stationary, resulting in minimal coupling torque at the adjacent joint. Specifically, for Targets 1 and 5 in our experiments, the net torque (and thus acceleration) at the elbow was negligible, and hence the shoulder experienced correspondingly low coupling torque (as illustrated in Figure 3c of our manuscript). To avoid confusion, we will use the term ‘predominantly single-joint’ movements in our revised manuscript to indicate targets with low coupling torques. We will also include an additional figure in the revised supplementary material displaying the net torques at the shoulder and elbow, similar to Figures 2c and 3c. Our goal is to demonstrate that movements to targets 1 and 5 are characterized by predominantly one-joint engagement (i.e., the elbow is stationary with low net torque) and low coupling torques, rather than implying a purely isolated, single-joint motion.

Because at least part of this work was previously analyzed and published, information should be provided regarding which data are new.

We will include a clear statement in the Methods section specifying which components of the dataset and analyses are entirely new. While some of the same animals and stimulation protocol were presented in prior work, the inverse-dynamics modeling, analyses of progressive movement changes across trials under stimulation and invariance of motor noise to movement velocity are newly reported in this manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript asks an interesting and important question: what part of 'cerebellar' motor dysfunction is an acute control problem vs a compensatory strategy to the acute control issue? The authors use a cerebellar 'blockade' protocol, consisting of high-frequency stimuli applied to the cerebellar peduncle which is thought to interfere with outflow signals. This protocol was applied in monkeys performing center outreaching movements and has been published from this laboratory in several preceding studies. I found the take-home-message broadly convincing and clarifying - that cerebellar block reduces muscle activation acutely particularly in movements that involve multiple joints and therefore invoke interaction torques, and that movements progressively slow down to in effect 'compensate' for these acute tone deficits. The manuscript was generally well written, and the data was clear, convincing, and novel. My comments below highlight suggestions to improve clarity and sharpen some arguments.

Primary comments:

(1) Torque vs. tone: Is it known whether this type of cerebellar blockade is reducing muscle tone or inducing any type of acute co-contraction that could influence limb velocity through mechanisms different than 'atonia'? If so, the authors should discuss this information in the discussion section starting around line 336, and clarify that this motivates (if it does) the focus on 'torques' rather than muscle activation. Relatedly, besides the fact that there are joints involved, is there a reason there is so much emphasis on torque per se? If the muscle is deprived of sufficient drive, it would seem that it would be more straightforward to conceptualize the deficit as one of insufficient timed drive to a set of muscles than joint force. Some text better contextualizing the choices made here would be sufficient to address this concern. I found statements like those in the introduction "hand velocity was low initially, reflecting a primary muscle torque deficit" to be lacking in substance. Either that statement is self-evident or the alternative was not made clear. Finally, emphasize that it is a loss of self-generated torque at the shoulder that accounts for the velocity deficits. At times the phrasing makes it seem that there is a loss of some kind of passive torque.

We appreciate the reviewer’s emphasis on distinguishing reduced muscle tone and altered co-contraction patterns as possible explanations for decreased limb velocity. Our focus on torques arises from previous studies suggesting that the core deficit in cerebellar ataxia is impaired prediction of coupling torques. This point will be added in the discussion section of our revised manuscript where we will explain why we prioritize muscle torques and how muscle-level activation collectively contributes to net joint torques. Also, we will underscore that the observed velocity deficits primarily reflect a reduction of self-generated torque at the shoulder (whether acute or adaptive), rather than any reduction in passive torques.

(2) Please clarify some of the experimental metrics: Ln 94 RESULTS. The success rate is used as a primary behavioral readout, but what constitutes success is not clearly defined in the methods. In addition to providing a clear definition in the methods section, it would also be helpful for the authors to provide a brief list of criteria used to determine a 'successful' movement in the results section before the behavioral consequences of stimulation are described. In particular, the time and positional error requirements should be clear.

Successful trials were trials in which monkeys didn’t leave the center position before the go signal and reached the peripheral target within a specific time criteria. These values varied in different monkeys. We will include detailed definitions of our success criteria in the revised methods section of our manuscript. Specifically, we will update our methods section to include (i) the timing criteria of each phase of the trials and (ii) the size of the peripheral targets indicating the tolerance for endpoint accuracy.

(3) Based on the polar plot in Figure 1c, it seemed odd to consider Targets 1-4 outward and 5-8 inward movements, when 1 and 5 are side-to-side. Is there a rationale for this grouping or might results be cleaner by cleanly segregating outward (targets 2-4) and inward (targets 6-8) movements? Indeed, by Figure 3 where interaction torques are measured, this grouping would seem to align with the hypothesis much more cleanly since it is with T2,T3,and T4 where clear coupling torques deficits are seen with cerebellar block.

We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation regarding Targets 1 and 5 being side-to-side rather than strictly “outward” or “inward.” In the first section of our results, we grouped the targets in this way to emphasize the notably stronger effect of the cerebellar block on targets involving shoulder flexion (‘outward’) as compared to those involving shoulder extension (‘inwards’). For subsequent analyses we focused on the effects of cerebellar block on outward targets where movements were single-joint (Target 1) vs. multi-joint (Targets 2-4). To clarify this aspect, in our revised manuscript we will explain the rationale for grouping T1–T4 as “outward” and T5–T8 as “inward,” including how we defined them.

(4) I did not follow Figure 3d. Both the figure axis labels and the description in the main text were difficult to follow. Furthermore, the color code per animal made me question whether the linear regression across the entire dataset was valid, or would be better performed within animal, and the regressions summarized across animals. The authors should look again at this section and figure.

We will revise the figure labels and legend to clarify how each axis is defined. Please note that pooling the data was done after confirming that data from each animal expressed a similar trend. Specifically, the correlation coefficients were all positive but statistically significant in 3 out of the 4 monkeys. Moreover, following the reviewers’ feedback, we also did a partial correlation analysis (which controls for the variability across monkeys) and found a significant correlation (r = 0.33, p < 0.001). These points will be described in the revised manuscript.

(5) Line 206+ The rationale for examining movement decomposition with a cerebellar block is presented as testing the role of the cerebellum in timing. Yet it is not spelled out what movement decomposition and trajectory variability have to do with motor timing per se.

The reviewer is right and the relations between timing, decomposition and variability need to be explicitly presented. In our revision, we will explain how decomposed movements may reflect impaired temporal coordination across multiple joints—a critical cerebellar function. We will also clarify how increased variability in joint coordination can result in increased trial-to-trial variability of trajectories.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In their manuscript, "Disentangling acute motor deficits and adaptive responses evoked by the loss of cerebellar output," Sinha and colleagues aim to identify distinct causes of motor impairments seen when perturbing cerebellar circuits. This goal is an important one, given the diversity of movement-related phenotypes in patients with cerebellar lesions or injuries, which are especially difficult to dissect given the chronic nature of the circuit damage. To address this goal, the authors use high-frequency stimulation (HFS) of the superior cerebellar peduncle in monkeys performing reaching movements. HFS provides an attractive approach for transiently disrupting cerebellar function previously published by this group. First, they found a reduction in hand velocities during reaching, which was more pronounced for outward versus inward movements. By modeling inverse dynamics, they find evidence that shoulder muscle torques are especially affected. Next, the authors examine the temporal evolution of movement phenotypes over successive blocks of HFS trials. Using this analysis, they find that in addition to the acute, specific effects on muscle torques in early HFS trials, there was an additional progressive reduction in velocity during later trials, which they interpret as an adaptive response to the inability to effectively compensate for interaction torques during cerebellar block. Finally, the authors examine movement decomposition and trajectory, finding that even when low-velocity reaches are matched to controls, HFS produces abnormally decomposed movements and higher than expected variability in trajectory.

Strengths:

Overall, this work provides important insight into how perturbation of cerebellar circuits can elicit diverse effects on movement across multiple timescales.

The HFS approach provides temporal resolution and enables analysis that would be hard to perform in the context of chronic lesions or slow pharmacological interventions. Thus, this study describes an important advance over prior methods of circuit disruption, and their approach can be used as a framework for future studies that delve deeper into how additional aspects of sensorimotor control are disrupted (e.g., response to limb perturbations).

In addition, the authors use well-designed behavioral approaches and analysis methods to distinguish immediate from longer-term adaptive effects of HFS on behavior. Moreover, inverse dynamics modeling provides important insight into how movements with different kinematics and muscle dynamics might be differentially disrupted by cerebellar perturbation.

Weaknesses:

The argument that there are acute and adaptive effects to perturbing cerebellar circuits is compelling, but there seems to be a lost opportunity to leverage the fast and reversible nature of the perturbations to further test this idea and strengthen the interpretation. Specifically, the authors could have bolstered this argument by looking at the effects of terminating HFS - one might hypothesize that the acute impacts on muscle torques would quickly return to baseline in the absence of HFS, whereas the longer-term adaptive component would persist in the form of aftereffects during the 'washout' period. As is, the reversible nature of the perturbation seems underutilized in testing the authors' ideas.

We agree that our approach could more explicitly exploit the rapid reversibility of high-frequency stimulation (HFS) by examining post-stimulation ‘washout’ periods. However, for the present dataset, we ended the session after the set of cerebellar block trials. We plan to study the effect of cerebellar block on immediate post-block washout trials in the future.

The analysis showing that there is a gradual reduction in velocity during what the authors call an adaptive phase is convincing. That said, the argument is made that this is due to difficulty in compensating for interaction torques. Even if the inward targets (i.e., targets 6-8) do not show a deficit during the acute phase, these targets still have significant interaction torques (Figure 3c). Given the interpretation of the data as presented, it is not clear why disruption of movement during the adaptive phase would not be seen for these targets as well since they also have large interaction torques. Moreover, it is difficult to delve into this issue in more detail, as the analyses in Figures 4 and 5 omit the inward targets.

The reviewer is right and movements to Targets 6–8 (inward) were seemingly unaffected despite also involving significant interaction torques. In fact, we have already attempted to address this issue in the discussion section of the version 1 of our manuscript. Specifically, we note that while outward targets (2–4) tend to involve higher coupling torque impulses on average, this alone does not fully explain the differential impact of cerebellar block, as illustrated by discrepancies at the individual target level (e.g., target 7 vs. target 1). We proposed two possible explanations: (1) a bias toward shoulder flexion in the effect of cerebellar block—consistent with earlier studies showing ipsilateral flexor activation or tone changes following stimulation or lesioning of the deep cerebellar nuclei; and (2) a posture-related facilitation of inward (shoulder extension) movements from the central starting position.

The text in the Introduction and in the prior work developing the HFS approach overstates the selectivity of the perturbations. First, there is an emphasis on signals transmitted to the neocortex. As the authors state several times in the Discussion, there are many subcortical targets of the cerebellar nuclei as well, and thus it is difficult to disentangle target-specific behavioral effects using this approach. Second, the superior cerebellar peduncle contains both cerebellar outputs and inputs (e.g., spinocerebellar). Therefore, the selectivity in perturbing cerebellar output feels overstated. Readers would benefit from a more agnostic claim that HFS affects cerebellar communication with the rest of the nervous system, which would not affect the major findings of the study.

The reviewer is right that the superior cerebellar peduncle carries both descending and ascending fibers, and that cerebellar nuclei project to subcortical as well as cortical targets. However, it is also important to note that in primates the cerebellar-thalamo-cortical (CTC) pathway greatly expanded (on the expanse of the cerbello-rubro-spinal tract) in mediating cerebellar control of voluntary movements (Horne and Butler, 1995). The cerebello-subcortical pathways lost its importance over the course of evolution (Nathan and Smith, 1982, Padel et al., 1981, ten Donkelaar, 1988). In our previous study we found that the ascending spinocerebellar axons which enter the cerebellum through the SCP are weakly task-related and the descending system is quite small (Cohen et al, 2017). However, we cannot rule out an effect of HFS mediated in part through other systems. In the revised introduction section, we will clarify this point and use more careful language about the scope of our stimulation, emphasizing that HFS disrupts cerebellar communication broadly, rather than solely the cerebello-thalamo-cortical pathway.

The text implies that increased movement decomposition and variability must be due to noise. However, this assumption is not tested. It is possible that the impairments observed are caused by disrupted commands, independent of whether these command signals are noisy. In other words, commands could be low noise but still faulty.

We recognize the reviewer’s concern about linking movement decomposition and trial-to-trial trajectory variability with motor noise. As presented in our discussion section, we interpret these motor abnormalities as a form of motor noise in the sense that they are generated by faulty motor commands. We draw our interpretation from the findings of previous research work which show that the cerebellum aids in the state estimation of the limb and subsequent generation of accurate feedforward commands. Therefore, disruption of the cerebellar output may lead to faulty motor commands resulting in the observed asynchronous joint activations (i.e., movement decomposition) and unpredictable trajectories (i.e., increased trial-to-trial variability). Both observed deficits resemble increased motor noise.

Throughout the text, the use of the term 'feedforward control' seems unnecessary. To dig into the feedforward component of the deficit, the authors could quantify the trajectory errors only at the earliest time points (e.g., in Figure 5d), but even with this analysis, it is difficult to disentangle feedforward- and feedback-mediated effects when deficits are seen throughout the reach. While outside the scope of this study, it would be interesting to explore how feedback responses to limb perturbation are affected in control versus HFS conditions. However, as is, these questions are not explored, and the claim of impaired feedforward control feels overstated.

We agree that to strictly focus on feedforward control, we could have examined the measured variables in the first 50-100 ms of the movement which has been shown to be unaffected by feedback responses (Pruszynski et al. 2008, Todorov and Jordan 2002, Pruszynski and Scott 2012, Crevecoeur et al. 2013). However, in our task the amplitude of movements made by our monkeys was small and therefore the response measures we used were too small in the first 50-100 ms for a robust estimation. Also, fixing a time window led to an unfair comparison between control and cerebellar block trials, in which velocity was significantly reduced and therefore movement time was longer. Therefore, we used the peak velocity, torque-impulse at the peak velocity and maximum deviation of the hand trajectory as response measures. We will acknowledge this point in the discussion section of our revised manuscript. We will also tone down references to feedforward control throughout the text of our revised manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.

The terminology 'single-joint' movement is a bit confusing. At a minimum, it would be nice to show kinematics during different target reaches to demonstrate that certain targets are indeed single joint movements. More of an issue, however, is that it seems like these are not actually 'single-joint' movements. For example, Figure 2c shows that target 1 exhibits high elbow and shoulder torques, but in the text, T1 is described as a 'single-joint' reach (e.g. lines 155-156). The point that I think the authors are making is that these targets have low interaction torques. If that is the case, the terminology should be changed or clarified to avoid confusion.

Indeed, as reviewer #1 also noted, movements to target 1 and 5 are not purely single-joint but rather have relatively low coupling torques. Our intention while using the term “single-joint” was to indicate a target direction in which one joint remains stationary, resulting in minimal coupling torque at the adjacent joint. Specifically, for Targets 1 and 5 in our experiments, the net torque (and thus acceleration) at the elbow was negligible, and hence the shoulder experienced correspondingly low coupling torque (as illustrated in Figure 3c of our manuscript). ). To avoid confusion, we will use the term ‘predominantly single-joint’ movements in our revised manuscript to indicate targets with low coupling torques. We will also include an additional figure in the revised supplementary material displaying the net torques at the shoulder and elbow, similar to Figures 2c and 3c. Our goal is to demonstrate that movements to targets 1 and 5 are characterized by predominantly one-joint engagement (i.e., the elbow is stationary with low net torque) and low coupling torques, rather than implying a purely isolated, single-joint motion.

The labels in Figure 3d are confusing and could use more explanation in the figure legend.

In Figure 3d, it is stated that data from all monkeys is pooled. However, if there is a systematic bias between animals, this could generate spurious correlations. Were correlations also calculated for each animal separately to confirm the same trend between velocity and coupling torques holds for each animal?

We will revise the figure legend and main-text explanation for Figure 3d. Please note that pooling the data was done after confirming that data from each animal expressed a similar trend. Specifically, the correlation coefficients were positive but significant for 3 out of the 4 monkeys. Moreover, following the reviewers’ feedback, we also did a partial correlation analysis (which controls for the variability across monkeys) and found a significant correlation (r = 0.33, p < 0.001). These points will be described in the revised manuscript.

In Table S1, it would be nice to see target-specific success rates. The data would suggest that targets with the highest interaction torques will have the largest reduction in success rates, especially during later HFS trials. Is this the case?

We will provide a breakdown of the success rates as a function of targets. However, one should note that success/failure may depend on several factors beyond impaired limb dynamics. In a previous study (Nashef et al. 2019) we identified several causes of failure such as (i) not entering the central target in time, (ii) moving out too early from the peripheral target, (iii) Reaction time longer than permitted, or (iv) premature exit from the central target before permitted.