Enhancing motor imagery practice using synchronous action observation

Eaves, Daniel; Hodges, Nicola J.; Buckingham, Gavin; Buccino, Giovanni; Vogt, Stefan

doi:10.1007/s00426-022-01768-7

Cited by 31 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 173 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research from Rüther et al ( 2014) also found the action observation network, which comprises sensorimotor brain regions, was engaged when participants observed a novel object construction task from a visual picture matching cue or a partner who sat opposite. Importantly, while AO has been found to evoke activity in the areas of the brain that partially overlap with those responsible for movement execution (Caspers et al, 2010), a crucial limitation of AO is that it provides a visual representation of an action, without necessarily involving a sense of agency in the observer, nor promoting a focus on one's own body schema and the related kinesthetic sensations of the observed action (Eaves et al, 2022).…”

Section: The Effects Of Practice Condition On Motor Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AO+MI may therefore promote functional connectivity and plasticity within the brain in a unique way, facilitating motor execution as learning progresses (see O'Shea & Moran, 2017). Moreover, it is possible that the benefits found for combined AO+MI training resulted from a process whereby both an 29 AO-triggered representation and an MI-generated representation was maintained either in parallel or were merged to consolidate motor processes and facilitate the early phase of motor learning (Eaves et al, 2022).…”

Section: The Effects Of Practice Condition On Motor Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Motor learning without physical practice: The effects of combined action observation and motor imagery practice on cup-stacking speed

Binks¹,

Wilson²,

Schaik³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we explored training effects for combined action observation and motor imagery (AO+MI) instructions on a complex cup-stacking task, without physical practice. Using a Graeco-Latin Square design, we randomly assigned twenty-six participants into four groups. This counterbalanced the within-participant factor of practice condition (AO+MI, AO, MI, Control) across four cup-stacking tasks, which varied in their complexity. On each of the three consecutive practice days participants experienced twenty trials under each of the three mental practice conditions. On each trial, a first-person perspective video depicted bilateral cup-stacking performed by an experienced model. During AO, participants passively observed this action, responding only to occasional colour cues. For AO+MI, participants imagined performing the observed action and synchronised their concurrent MI with the display. For MI, a sequence of pictures cued imagery of each stage of the task. Analyses revealed a significant main effect of practice condition both at the ’surprise’ post-test (Day 3) and at the one-week retention test. At both time points movement execution times were significantly shorter for AO+MI compared with AO, MI and the Control. Execution times were also shorter overall at the retention compared with the post-test. These results demonstrate that a complex novel motor task can be acquired without physical training. Practitioners can therefore use AO+MI practice to supplement physical practice and optimise skill learning.

show abstract

Section: The Effects Of Practice Condition On Motor Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Effects Of Practice Condition On Motor Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor learning without physical practice: The effects of combined action observation and motor imagery practice on cup-stacking speed

Binks¹,

Wilson²,

Schaik³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There has been considerable research interest directed to determining the combined effects of AO+MI for practice, with the assumption that these covert states activate different processes that together can augment performance and learning experiences for individuals (for reviews see Eaves et al ., 2022; Scott et al ., 2022). Our data are generally in alignment with conclusions from this work, showing that there are behavioural as well as neurophysiological control related differences between AO and MI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concurrent action observation but not motor imagery modulates interhemispheric inhibition during physical execution

Vallido,

Scott,

Peters

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor control relies on an inhibitory connection between the motor cortices of the brain, known as interhemispheric inhibition (IHI). This phenomenon is well established during the execution of unilateral motor tasks. It is unknown if the neurophysiological effects associated with IHI during physical execution (PE) also occur during action observation (AO) and motor imagery (MI) and/or if the addition of these covert processes to PE moderates IHI; speaking to differences in neurophysiology and functional equivalence. Participants (N=23) performed unilateral concentric wrist contractions (50% maximum voluntary contraction) under three conditions: PE alone, concurrent PE+AO, and concurrent PE+MI. To index IHI, we induced an ipsilateral silent period (iSP) and assessed iSP duration during each condition via neuro-navigated single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the ipsilateral motor cortex. Relative to PE alone, iSP decreased during PE+AO, yet only when this condition preceded PE+MI. iSP duration was not modulated during PE+MI. Together, these data suggest that PE+AO promotes bilateral recruitment and ‘interhemispheric cooperation’ rather than inhibition. AO and MI differentially impact interhemispheric coordination, serving to suppress inhibition only when AO is primed by MI.

show abstract

“…(2) executive functions during perceptual-cognitive scaffolding (Glover & Baran, 2017), (3) simulation in perceptualcognitive scaffolding (Jeannerod, 2001); (4) inverse and/ or forward models during imagery and imagery practice (Bach et al, 2022;Rieger et al in this issue); to (5) the manipulation of aspects of the movement representation such as its (multi)sensory quality of imagery (for a review, see Krüger et al, 2022), and (6) the exploration of superadditive effects of action observation as a truly sensory format to the imagery process(see Eaves et al, 2022).…”

Section: Understanding Learning Via Imagery -Quo Vadis?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning motor actions via imagery—perceptual or motor learning?

Frank

Kraeutner

Rieger

et al. 2023

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Enhancing motor imagery practice using synchronous action observation

Cited by 31 publications

References 173 publications

Motor learning without physical practice: The effects of combined action observation and motor imagery practice on cup-stacking speed

Motor learning without physical practice: The effects of combined action observation and motor imagery practice on cup-stacking speed

Concurrent action observation but not motor imagery modulates interhemispheric inhibition during physical execution

Learning motor actions via imagery—perceptual or motor learning?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About