A theoretical perspective on action consequences in action imagery: internal prediction as an essential mechanism to detect errors

Motor imagery, forward models and the cerebellum: a commentary on Rieger et al., 2023

In this commentary on Rieger et al., Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 2023, I discuss possible ways to test the hypothesis that action imagery is achieved by simulations of actions through an internal forward model. These include brain imaging, perturbation through TMS, and psychophysical tests of adaptation of intended reach actions.

Candidate brain regions for motor imagery practice: a commentary on Rieger et al., 2023

The mechanism through which motor imagery practice improves motor performance remains unclear. In this special issue, Rieger et al. propose a model to explain why motor imagery practice improves motor performance. According to their model, motor imagery involves a comparison between intended and predicted action effects, allowing for the modification of the internal model upon detecting errors. I believe that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is a candidate as a brain region responsible for comparing intended and predicted action effects. Evidence supports this hypothesis, as a previous study has observed error-related activity in the ACC preceding incorrect responses (i.e., commission errors) in the Go/No-go task (Bediou et al., 2012, Neuroimage). Therefore, the error-related activity can be induced without any feedback. This fact also sheds light on the mechanisms of brain-computer interface. I believe that this additional literature will enhance Rieger's model.

Imagery and motor learning: a special issue on the neurocognitive mechanisms of imagery and imagery practice of motor actions

Human beings are able to imagine actions with the aim to change movement coordination and to learn particular movements. Meta-analyses to date have shown that when individuals systematically engage in imagery of a motor action without overt behavior this can improve motor performance and facilitate motor learning. Despite a considerable body of research in neuroscience, psychology, and sport science, however, there is at present no consensus on the neurocognitive mechanisms of imagery, and the mechanisms that lead to learning via imagined action are still being debated. In particular, the differences between imagined and overt action, and respective learning effects, remain to be fully explained. The present collection of manuscripts is a result of compiling both theoretical advances in the field of motor control and motor learning and those in imagery research to better understand imagery and learning. It is structured alongside five position papers from leading experts in the field, each of which is followed by a series of short commentaries written by experts from various disciplines. This collection demonstrates (a) that conceptualizations of imagery are manifold, vary highly and depend on the perspective chosen, (b) that existing approaches to the neurocognitive mechanisms of imagery and imagery practice of motor actions draw on distinct motor control and learning perspectives, (c) that perspectives from the wider fields of motor control and learning stimulate new approaches to explain imagery and imagery practice, (d) and that future research is needed to investigate and compare different perspectives and conceptualizations of the neurocognitive mechanisms of imagery and imagery practice of motor actions.

Online corrections can occur within movement imagery: An investigation of the motor-cognitive model

The motor-cognitive model proposes that movement imagery additionally requires conscious monitoring owing to an absence of veridical online sensory feedback. Therefore, it is predicted that there would be a comparatively limited ability for individuals to update or correct movement imagery as they could within execution. To investigate, participants executed and imagined target-directed aiming movements featuring either an unexpected target perturbation (Exp. 1) or removal of visual sensory feedback (Exp. 2). The results of both experiments indicated that the time-course of executed and imagined movements was equally influenced by each of these online visual manipulations. Thus, contrary to some of the tenets of the motor-cognitive model, movement imagery holds the capacity to interpolate online corrections despite the absence of veridical sensory feedback. The further theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

The Effect of Motor Imagery Practice on an Aiming Task with Attentional Focus Cues

When one directs their attention to an intended effect (external focus of attention, EFOA), motor performance is generally better than when one directs their attention to their own body movements (internal focus of attention, IFOA). However, the effect of attentional focus is unclear when a skill is practiced through motor imagery (MI) in the absence of physical trials. Participants (N = 30, M = 22.33 yrs, SD = 2.69) in the present study completed three physical trials of a reciprocal aiming task before and (24-h) after MI practice. During MI practice, the EFOA (n = 15) and IFOA (n = 15) groups mentally practiced the task with no physical practice with EFOA-MI or IFOA-MI, respectively, for three consecutive days. Our results showed that both groups significantly improved in accuracy (F1,28 = 6.49, p = .017), supporting the benefit of MI in motor skill acquisition. However, a significant effect of attentional focus was not observed (F1.,28 = 0.445, p = 0.51). We discussed two potential explanations: EFOA/IFOA requires physical trials to affect performance, or individuals must use both EFOA and IFOA in the process of creating imagery of the environment and movements, which may obscure the effect of EFOA and IFOA.

Let's do it: Response times in Mental Paper Folding and its execution

Action imagery is the ability to mentally simulate the execution of an action without physically performing it. Action imagery is assumed to rely at least partly on similar mechanisms as action execution. Therefore, we expected that imagery and execution durations would be constrained by the number of folds in a Paper Folding Task. Analogously, individual differences in execution durations were expected to be reflected in imagery durations. Twenty-eight participants performed two imagery conditions (computer vs. paper) and one execution condition (paper) where two-dimensional grids of a three-dimensional cube were (mentally) folded to determine whether two selected edges overlapped or not. As expected, imagery performance and execution performance were strongly correlated and decreased with the number of folds. Further, the number of folds influenced imagery durations even more than execution durations. This may be due to the additional cognitive load in imagery that emerges when tracking the folds to follow up with the next ones. The results indicate that Mental Paper Folding predominantly involves dynamic visual representations that are not functionally associated with one's own movements as in action imagery.

Kinesthetic vs. visual focus: No evidence for effects of practice modality in representation types after action imagery practice and action execution practice

Action-imagery practice (AIP) is assumed to result in partly different action representations than action-execution practice (AEP). The present study investigated whether focusing on either kinesthetic or visual aspects of a task during practice amplifies or diminishes such differences between AIP and AEP. In ten sessions, four groups, using either AIP or AEP with either kinesthetic or visual focus, practiced a twelve-element sequence in a unimanual serial reaction time task. Tests involved the practice sequence, a mirror sequence, and a different sequence, each performed with the practice and transfer hand. In AIP and AEP, in both hands, reaction times (RTs) were shorter in the practice sequence than in the different sequence, indicating effector-independent visual-spatial sequence representations. Further, RTs were shorter in the practice hand than in the transfer hand in the practice sequence (but not in the different sequence), indicating effector-dependent representations in AEP and AIP. Although the representation types did not differ, learning effects were stronger in AEP than in AIP. Thus, although to a lower extent than in AEP, effector-dependent representations can be acquired using AIP. Contrary to the expectations, the focus manipulation did not have an impact on the acquired representation types. Hence, modality instructions in AIP may not have such a strong impact as commonly assumed, at least in implicit sequence learning.

Meaning in hand: Investigating shared mechanisms of motor imagery and sensorimotor simulation in language processing

There is substantial evidence to support grounded theories of semantic representation, however the mechanisms of simulation in most theories are underspecified. In the present study, we used an individual differences approach to test whether motor imagery may share some mechanisms with sensorimotor simulations engaged during semantic processing. We quantified individual differences in motor imagery ability via implicit imagery tasks and explicit imagery questionnaires and tested their relationship to sensorimotor effects in syntactic classification tasks. In Experiment 1 (N = 185) we tested relationships between motor imagery and semantic processing of body-object interaction meaning (BOI; the degree to which you can interact with a word's referent) and foot/leg action meaning. We observed two interactions between imagery ability measured on the Florida Praxis Imagery Questionnaire (FPIQ) and BOI effects in semantic processing (response time and accuracy). In both interactions poorer imagery ability was associated with null BOI effects, whereas better imagery was associated with BOI effects. We also observed faster and more accurate responses to verbs associated with more foot/leg action meaning than verbs with less foot/leg action meaning, but this foot/leg action effect did not significantly interact with individual differences in motor imagery. In Experiment 2 (N = 195) we tested whether the interactions observed in Experiment 1 were dependent on the object-directed nature of the actions, or whether similar effects would be observed for hand actions not associated with objects. We also expanded our investigation beyond hand and foot imagery to consider whole body imagery. We observed an interaction between performance on a hand laterality judgement task (HLJT; assessing hand motor imagery) and sensorimotor effects in semantic processing of verbs associated with hand/arm action meaning. Participants with the fastest responses on the most difficult trials of the HLJT showed no significant difference in their response times to words with high and low hand/arm action meaning. We also observed faster and more accurate responses to high relative to low embodiment verbs, but this sensorimotor effect did not interact with individual differences in motor imagery. The results suggest specific (and not general) associations, in that some, but not all forms of hand and object-directed motor imagery are related to sensorimotor effects in language processing of hand/arm action verbs and nouns describing objects that are easy to interact with. As such, hand and object-directed motor imagery may share mechanisms with sensorimotor simulation during semantic processing.

Inter-task transfer of force gains is facilitated by motor imagery

Introduction

There is compelling evidence that motor imagery (MI) contributes to improve muscle strength. While strong effects have been observed for finger muscles, only few experiments with moderate benefits were conducted within applied settings targeting large upper or lower limb muscles. The aim of the present study was therefore to extend the investigation of embedded MI practice designed to improve maximal voluntary strength on a multi-joint dynamic exercise involving the lower limbs. Additionally, we tested whether targeting the content of MI on another movement than that physically performed and involving the same body parts might promote inter-task transfer of strength gains.

Methods

A total of 75 participants were randomly assigned into three groups who underwent a physical training on back squat. During inter-trial recovery periods, a first MI group (n = 25) mentally rehearsed the back squat, while a second MI group (n = 25) performed MI of a different movement involving the lower limbs (deadlift). Participants from the control group (n = 25) completed a neutral cognitive task during equivalent time. Strength and power gains were assessed ecologically using a velocity transducer device at 4 different time periods.

Results

Data first revealed that participants who engaged in MI of the back squat improved their back squat performance (p < 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively), more than the control group (p < 0.05), hence supporting the positive effects of MI on strength. Data further supported the inter-task transfer of strength gains when MI targeted a movement that was not physically trained (p = 0.05).

Discussion

These findings provide experimental support for the use of MI during physical training sessions to improve and transfer force development.

A Quantitative Investigation of Mental Fatigue Elicited during Motor Imagery Practice: Selective Effects on Maximal Force Performance and Imagery Ability

In the present study, we examined the development of mental fatigue during the kinesthetic motor imagery (MI) of isometric force contractions performed with the dominant upper limb. Participants (n = 24) underwent four blocks of 20 MI trials of isometric contractions at 20% of the maximal voluntary contraction threshold (20% MVC_MI) and 20 MI trials of maximal isometric contractions (100% MVC_MI). Mental fatigue was assessed after each block using a visual analogue scale (VAS). We assessed maximal isometric force before, during and after MI sessions. We also assessed MI ability from self-report ratings and skin conductance recordings. Results showed a logarithmic pattern of increase in mental fatigue over the course of MI, which was superior during 100% MVC_MI. Unexpectedly, maximal force improved during 100% MVC_MI between the 1st and 2nd evaluations but remained unchanged during 20% MVC_MI. MI ease and vividness improved during 100% MVC_MI, with a positive association between phasic skin conductance and VAS mental fatigue scores. Conversely, subjective measures revealed decreased MI ability during 20% MVC_MI. Mental fatigue did not hamper the priming effects of MI on maximal force performance, nor MI's ability for tasks involving high physical demands. By contrast, mental fatigue impaired MI vividness and elicited boredom effects in the case of motor tasks with low physical demands.