Leveraging the effector independent nature of motor imagery when it is paired with physical practice

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.

Imagine to automatize: automatization of stimulus-response coupling after action imagery practice in implicit sequence learning

Action imagery practice (AIP) describes the repetitive imagination of an action to improve subsequent action execution. Because AIP and action execution practice (AEP) draw on partly similar motor mechanisms, it was assumed that AIP may lead to motor automatization, which is observable in a reduction of dual-task costs after AEP. To investigate automatization in AIP, we compared dual-task and single-task performance in practice and random sequences in pretests and posttests. All participants practiced serial reactions to visual stimuli in ten single-task practice sessions. An AIP group imagined the reactions. An AEP group and a control practice group executed the reactions. Practice followed a sequential sequence in AIP and AEP but was random in control practice. In dual-task test conditions, tones were counted that appeared in addition to the visual stimuli. RTs decreased from pretest to posttest in both practice and random sequences in all groups indicating general sequence-unspecific learning. Further, RTs decreased to a greater extent in the practice sequence than in the random sequence after AIP and AEP, indicating sequence-specific learning. Dual-task costs-the difference between RTs after tone and no tone events-were reduced independent from the performed sequence in all groups indicating sequence-unspecific automatization. It is concluded that the stimulus-response coupling can be automatized by both, AEP and AIP.

Combined action observation and motor imagery improves learning of activities of daily living in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder

Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) is characterised by poor motor coordination, which interferes with the ability to execute activities of daily living (ADLs). Combined action observation and motor imagery (AOMI) involves observing movement videos whilst imagining simultaneously the sensations of executing the same movement. Laboratory-based research indicates that AOMI can help improve movement coordination in children with DCD, but no previous research had investigated the efficacy of AOMI interventions for learning ADLs. This study investigated the efficacy of a home-based, parent-led, AOMI intervention for learning ADLs in children with DCD. Children with confirmed (n = 23) or suspected (n = 5) DCD (total sample n = 28), aged 7-12 years, were assigned to either an AOMI intervention or a control intervention (both n = 14). Participants attempted the following ADLs at pre-test (week 1), post-test (week 4), and retention test (week 6): shoelace tying, cutlery use, shirt buttoning, and cup stacking. Task completion times and movement techniques were recorded. The AOMI intervention produced significantly faster task completion times than the control intervention at post-test for shoelace tying, and significantly improved movement techniques for shoelace tying and cup stacking. Importantly, for children who could not tie shoelaces at pre-test (n = 9 per group), 89% of those following the AOMI intervention learnt the skill successfully by the end of the study, compared to only 44% of those following the control intervention. The findings indicate that home-based, parent-led, AOMI interventions can aid the learning of complex ADLs in children with DCD, and may be particularly effective for facilitating the learning of motor skills that do not currently exist within these children's motor repertoire.

Time course of learning sequence representations in action imagery practice

Action imagery practice (AIP) is effective to improve motor performance in a variety of tasks, though it is often less effective than action execution practice (AEP). In sequence learning, AIP and AEP result in the acquisition of effector-independent representations. However, it is unresolved whether effector-dependent representations can be acquired in AIP. In the present study, we investigated the acquisition of effector-independent representations and effector-dependent representations in AEP and AIP in an implicit sequence learning task (a visual serial-reaction-time task, involving a twelve-element sequence). Participants performed six sessions, each starting with tests. A practice sequence, a mirror sequence, and a different sequence were tested with the practice and transfer hand. In the first four sessions, after the tests, two groups performed either AIP (N = 50) or AEP (N = 54). Improvement in the different sequence indicated sequence-unspecific learning in both AEP and AIP. Importantly, reaction times of the practice hand became shorter in the practice sequence than in the other sequences, indicating implicit sequence learning in both, AEP and AIP. This effect was stronger in the practice hand than in the transfer hand, indicating effector-dependent sequence representations in both AEP and AIP. However, effector-dependent sequence representations were stronger in AEP than in AIP. No significant differences between groups were observed in the transfer hand, although effector-independent sequence representations were observed in AEP only. In conclusion, AIP promotes not only sequence-unspecific stimulus-response coupling and anticipations of the subsequent stimuli, but also anticipations of the subsequent responses.

Learning motor actions via imagery-perceptual or motor learning?

It is well accepted that repeatedly imagining oneself acting without any overt behavior can lead to learning. The prominent theory accounting for why imagery practice is effective, motor simulation theory, posits that imagined action and overt action are functionally equivalent, the exception being activation of the end effector. If, as motor simulation theory states, one can compile the goal, plan, motor program and outcome of an action during imagined action similar to overt action, then learning of novel skills via imagery should proceed in a manner equivalent to that of overt action. While the evidence on motor simulation theory is both plentiful and diverse, it does not explicitly account for differences in neural and behavioural findings between imagined and overt action. In this position paper, we briefly review theoretical accounts to date and present a perceptual-cognitive theory that accounts for often observed outcomes of imagery practice. We suggest that learning by way of imagery reflects perceptual-cognitive scaffolding, and that this 'perceptual' learning transfers into 'motor' learning (or not) depending on various factors. Based on this theory, we characterize consistently reported learning effects that occur with imagery practice, against the background of well-known physical practice effects and show that perceptual-cognitive scaffolding is well-suited to explain what is being learnt during imagery practice.

Sequence representations after action-imagery practice of one-finger movements are effector-independent

Action-imagery practice (AIP) is often less effective than action-execution practice (AEP). We investigated whether this is due to a different time course of learning of different types of sequence representations in AIP and AEP. Participants learned to sequentially move with one finger to ten targets, which were visible the whole time. All six sessions started with a test. In the first four sessions, participants performed AIP, AEP, or control-practice (CP). Tests involved the practice sequence, a mirror sequence, and a different sequence, which were performed both with the practice hand and the other (transfer) hand. In AIP and AEP, movement times (MTs) in both hands were significantly shorter in the practice sequence than in the other sequences, indicating sequence-specific learning. In the transfer hand, this indicates effector-independent visual-spatial representations. The time course of the acquisition of effector-independent visual-spatial representations did not significantly differ between AEP and AIP. In AEP (but not in AIP), MTs in the practice sequence were significantly shorter in the practice hand than in the transfer hand, indicating effector-dependent representations. In conclusion, effector-dependent representations were not acquired after extensive AIP, which may be due to the lack of actual feedback. Therefore, AIP may replace AEP to acquire effector-independent visual-spatial representations, but not to acquire effector-dependent representations.

Enhancing motor imagery practice using synchronous action observation

In this paper, we discuss a variety of ways in which practising motor actions by means of motor imagery (MI) can be enhanced via synchronous action observation (AO), that is, by AO + MI. We review the available research on the (mostly facilitatory) behavioural effects of AO + MI practice in the early stages of skill acquisition, discuss possible theoretical explanations, and consider several issues related to the choice and presentation schedules of suitable models. We then discuss considerations related to AO + MI practice at advanced skill levels, including expertise effects, practical recommendations such as focussing attention on specific aspects of the observed action, using just-ahead models, and possible effects of the perspective in which the observed action is presented. In section "Coordinative AO + MI", we consider scenarios where the observer imagines performing an action that complements or responds to the observed action, as a promising and yet under-researched application of AO + MI training. In section "The dual action simulation hypothesis of AO + MI", we review the neurocognitive hypothesis that AO + MI practice involves two parallel action simulations, and we consider opportunities for future research based on recent neuroimaging work on parallel motor representations. In section "AO + MI training in motor rehabilitation", we review applications of AO, MI, and AO + MI training in the field of neurorehabilitation. Taken together, this evidence-based, exploratory review opens a variety of avenues for future research and applications of AO + MI practice, highlighting several clear advantages over the approaches of purely AO- or MI-based practice.

Imagining the way forward: A review of contemporary motor imagery theory

Over the past few decades, researchers have become interested in the mechanisms behind motor imagery (i.e., the mental rehearsal of action). During this time several theories of motor imagery have been proposed, offering diverging accounts of the processes responsible for motor imagery and its neural overlap with movement. In this review, we summarize the core claims of five contemporary theories of motor imagery: motor simulation theory, motor emulation theory, the motor-cognitive model, the perceptual-cognitive model, and the effects imagery model. Afterwards, we identify the key testable differences between them as well as their various points of overlap. Finally, we discuss potential future directions for theories of motor imagery.