Action Imagery Combined With Action Observation Activates More Corticomotor Regions Than Action Observation Alone

Nedelko, Violetta; Hassa, Thomas; Hamzei, Farsin; Schoenfeld, Mircea Ariel; Dettmers, Christian

doi:10.1097/npt.0b013e318272cad1

Cited by 79 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, there is good evidence that the way a motor action is mentally simulated influences corticospinal excitability. In support of this notion, fMRI data demonstrated that the combination of AO + MI resulted in greater brain activity than AO or MI alone (Macuga and Frey, 2012;Nedelko et al, 2012;Berends et al, 2013;Villiger et al, 2013;Vogt et al, 2013). The current results extend these previous findings, as they show for the first time differences in corticospinal excitability of the soleus muscle during AO + MI, MI, and passive AO of balance tasks.…”

Section: Comparison Of Mental Simulationssupporting

confidence: 89%

Task-dependent changes of corticospinal excitability during observation and motor imagery of balance tasks

Mouthon¹,

Ruffieux²,

Wälchli³

et al. 2015

Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-physical balance training has demonstrated to be efficient to improve postural control in young people. However, little is known about the potential to increase corticospinal excitability by mental simulation in lower leg muscles. Mental simulation of isolated, voluntary contractions of limb muscles increase corticospinal excitability but more automated tasks like walking seem to have no or only minor effects on motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). This may be related to the way of performing the mental simulation or the task itself. Therefore, the present study aimed to clarify how corticospinal excitability is modulated during AO+MI, MI and action observation (AO) of balance tasks. For this purpose, MEPs and H-reflexes were elicited during three different mental simulations (a) AO+MI, (b) MI and (c) passive AO. For each condition, two balance tasks were evaluated: (1) quiet upright stance (static) and (2) compensating a medio-lateral perturbation while standing on a free-swinging platform (dynamic). AO+MI resulted in the largest facilitation of MEPs followed by MI and passive AO. MEP facilitation was significantly larger in the dynamic perturbation than in the static standing task. Interestingly, passive observation resulted in hardly any facilitation independent of the task. H-reflex amplitudes were not modulated. The current results demonstrate that corticospinal excitability during mental simulation of balance tasks is influenced by both the type of mental simulation and the task difficulty. As H-reflexes and background EMG were not modulated, it may be argued that changes in excitability of the primary motor cortex were responsible for the MEP modulation. From a functional point of view, our findings suggest best training/rehabilitation effects when combining MI with AO during challenging postural tasks.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Mental Simulationssupporting

confidence: 89%

Task-dependent changes of corticospinal excitability during observation and motor imagery of balance tasks

Mouthon¹,

Ruffieux²,

Wälchli³

et al. 2015

Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This indicates that it matters how movements are observed. In line with this assumption, recent fMRI studies investigating non-postural tasks demonstrated greater brain activity when MI was simultaneously performed during AO (AO þ MI) than applying AO or MI alone (Berends et al, 2013;Macuga & Frey, 2012;Nedelko et al, 2012;Villiger et al, 2013;Vogt et al, 2013). The current results further strengthen and extend this picture to balance tasks.…”

Section: 2supporting

confidence: 87%

“…In order to clarify whether this phenomenon can also be applied to balance tasks, differences in neural activation between a) 'motor imagery' (MI), b) 'actively' (AO þ MI) and c) 'passively' (AO alone) observed balance tasks were investigated by instructing participants either to a) imagine the balance task (MI), b) imagine themselves as the person displayed in the video (AO þ MI) or c) simply to watch the video (AO). In analogy to observations in voluntary hand movements (Berends et al, 2013;Macuga & Frey, 2012;Nedelko et al, 2012) we expected the activity to be greater during AO þ MI than during AO or MI in both the static and dynamic balance task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…In a recent review article, Vogt, Rienzo, Collet, Collins, and Guillot (2013) have pointed out that MI and AO have been largely studied in isolation from each other but that combining both seems very promising. This statement was based on studies using electroencephalography (Berends, Wolkorte, Ijzerman, & van Putten, 2013) and fMRI (Macuga & Frey, 2012;Nedelko, Hassa, Hamzei, Schoenfeld, & Dettmers, 2012;Villiger et al, 2013;Vogt et al, 2013) to demonstrate higher brain activity during AO þ MI compared with AO and MI, respectively, in non-postural tasks. In order to clarify whether this phenomenon can also be applied to balance tasks, differences in neural activation between a) 'motor imagery' (MI), b) 'actively' (AO þ MI) and c) 'passively' (AO alone) observed balance tasks were investigated by instructing participants either to a) imagine the balance task (MI), b) imagine themselves as the person displayed in the video (AO þ MI) or c) simply to watch the video (AO).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Brain activity during observation and motor imagery of different balance tasks: An fMRI study

Taube

Mouthon

Leukel

et al. 2015

Cortex

190

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After immobilization, patients show impaired postural control and increased risk of falling. Therefore, loss of balance control should already be counteracted during immobilization. Previously, studies have demonstrated that both motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) can improve motor performance. The current study elaborated how the brain is activated during imagination and observation of different postural tasks to provide recommendations about the conception of non-physical balance training. For this purpose, participants were tested in a within-subject design in an fMRI-scanner in three different conditions: (a) AO + MI, (b) AO, and (c) MI. In (a) participants were instructed to imagine themselves as the person pictured in the video whereas in (b) they were instructed simply to watch the video. In (c) subjects closed their eyes and kinesthetically imagined the task displayed in the video. Two tasks were evaluated in each condition: (i) static standing balance and (ii) dynamic standing balance (medio-lateral perturbation). In all conditions the start of a new trial was indicated every 2 sec by a sound. During AO + MI of the dynamic task, participants activated motor centers including the putamen, cerebellum, supplementary motor area, premotor cortices (PMv/d) and primary motor cortex (M1). MI showed a similar pattern but no activity in M1 and PMv/d. In the SMA and cerebellum, activity was generally higher in the dynamic than in the static condition. AO did not significantly activate any of these brain areas. Our results showed that (I) mainly AO + MI, but also MI, activate brain regions important for balance control; (II) participants display higher levels of brain activation in the more demanding balance task; (III) there is a significant difference between AO + MI and AO. Consequently, best training effects should be expected when participants apply MI during AO (AO + MI) of challenging postural tasks.

show abstract

“…Some recent neuroimaging studies have detected greater cortical activity during action observation combined with motor imagery than during action observation or motor imagery alone [28][29][30]. In addition, several recent TMS studies, which focused on M1 excitability, have discussed the different effects of and interactions between action observation and motor imagery [7,8,[31][32][33][34][35].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of tactile stimulation on primary motor cortex excitability during action observation combined with motor imagery

Tanaka

Kubota

Onmyoji

et al. 2015

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Action Imagery Combined With Action Observation Activates More Corticomotor Regions Than Action Observation Alone

Abstract: These data reveal more profound activations of the motor system during AO in conjunction with imagery than during AO alone. These results may have important implications for neurorehabilitation and motor learning.

Cited by 79 publications

References 71 publications

Task-dependent changes of corticospinal excitability during observation and motor imagery of balance tasks

Task-dependent changes of corticospinal excitability during observation and motor imagery of balance tasks

Brain activity during observation and motor imagery of different balance tasks: An fMRI study

Effect of tactile stimulation on primary motor cortex excitability during action observation combined with motor imagery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About