Inter-individual neural differences in movement imagery abilities

Seiler, Brian D.; Newman‐Norlund, Roger; Monsma, Eva V.

doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.02.007

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kinaesthetic motor imagery produces more easily detectible neural signals, at scalp locations overlaying motor cortical brain regions, and additionally modulates corticospinal excitability measured via motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) (Stinear et al, 2006). However, about half of participants find it difficult to perform kinaesthetic motor imagery (Seiler et al, 2017), and those are the lowest performers on BCI (Vuckovic and Osuagwu, 2013). In some circumstances, it may be more beneficial to request that the patient make attempts to execute movements, rather than simply imagine movement (Blokland et al, 2012;Balasubramanian et al, 2018;Bai et al, 2020).…”

Section: Practical and Technical Challenges With Clinical Implementation Of Bcimentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and Opportunities for the Future of Brain-Computer Interface in Neurorehabilitation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) provide a unique technological solution to circumvent the damaged motor system. For neurorehabilitation, the BCI can be used to translate neural signals associated with movement intentions into tangible feedback for the patient, when they are unable to generate functional movement themselves. Clinical interest in BCI is growing rapidly, as it would facilitate rehabilitation to commence earlier following brain damage and provides options for patients who are unable to partake in traditional physical therapy. However, substantial challenges with existing BCI implementations have prevented its widespread adoption. Recent advances in knowledge and technology provide opportunities to facilitate a change, provided that researchers and clinicians using BCI agree on standardisation of guidelines for protocols and shared efforts to uncover mechanisms. We propose that addressing the speed and effectiveness of learning BCI control are priorities for the field, which may be improved by multimodal or multi-stage approaches harnessing more sensitive neuroimaging technologies in the early learning stages, before transitioning to more practical, mobile implementations. Clarification of the neural mechanisms that give rise to improvement in motor function is an essential next step towards justifying clinical use of BCI. In particular, quantifying the unknown contribution of non-motor mechanisms to motor recovery calls for more stringent control conditions in experimental work. Here we provide a contemporary viewpoint on the factors impeding the scalability of BCI. Further, we provide a future outlook for optimal design of the technology to best exploit its unique potential, and best practices for research and reporting of findings.

show abstract

Section: Practical and Technical Challenges With Clinical Implementation Of Bcimentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and Opportunities for the Future of Brain-Computer Interface in Neurorehabilitation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To explain this, biological and social environmental parameters must be considered. According to Parker and Lovell (2012) and Seiler et al (2017) , neurophysiology offers some explanations of the imagery vividness through the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measurements, allowing the differentiation between expert adults (i.e., with long-term motor practice) with high imagery ability and novice adults with low imagery ability. Indeed, Meister et al (2005) and Aglioti et al (2008) have noted that motor expertise is associated with functional changes in the brain, and Wu et al (2013) have indicated an increase in the activation of certain targeted brain areas in confirmed athletes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the same way, Seiler et al (2015) confirmed that the activation of neural networks differs depending on the IM modality: (KMI activates motor areas, internal VMI activates the inferior parietal lobule, and external VMI activates temporal areas, but not occipital). However, it should be noted that other studies have recorded equivocal results regarding the activation of neural circuits during MI [see: Seiler et al (2017) ]. On the other hand, some authors have noted that the social environment can be considered to be one of the main determinants of the ability to evoke vivid images.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Sporting and Physical Practice on Visual and Kinesthetic Motor Imagery Vividness: A Comparative Study Between Athletic, Physically Active, and Exempted Adolescents

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interest of motor imagery practice on performance and motor learning is well-established. However, the impact of sporting and physical practice on motor imagery vividness is currently unclear, especially in youth. Two-hundred-and-forty adolescents were recruited to form different groups. For each age group (age-group 1, A-G1 with 13years≤age≤14years 6months vs. age-group 2, A-G2 with 14years 6months<age≤16years), 40 athletes, 40 active adolescents, and 40 exempted were recruited (20 girls and 20 boys in each category). Movement Imagery Questionnaire-Revised Second version (MIQ-Rs) was used to assess the Visual Motor Imagery (VMI) and Kinesthetic Motor Imagery (KMI) vividness. Results show that VMI is more evoked and more vivid than KMI (p<0.001). Athletes had greater VMI and KMI than active and exempted groups (p<0.001), and the active group also performed higher VMI and KMI than the exempted group (p<0.001). Subjects from A-G2 had greater motor imagery than subjects from A-G1, and boys had better motor imagery than girls. Conclusion: the present results show that sport and physical education engagement is associated with enhanced motor imagery vividness, especially in VMI. Moreover, older adolescents evoke clearer images than younger adolescents, and boys have greater imagery ability than girls. Therefore, teachers and coaches should consider age and gender when developing this cognitive skill when learning, in physical education classes and sports clubs.

show abstract

Picture this! Suggested instructions for guiding the Neuroscience of action imagery: A commentary on Krüger et al. (2022)

Monsma,

Seiler

2024

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inter-individual neural differences in movement imagery abilities

Cited by 11 publications

References 63 publications

Challenges and Opportunities for the Future of Brain-Computer Interface in Neurorehabilitation

Challenges and Opportunities for the Future of Brain-Computer Interface in Neurorehabilitation

The Effects of Sporting and Physical Practice on Visual and Kinesthetic Motor Imagery Vividness: A Comparative Study Between Athletic, Physically Active, and Exempted Adolescents

Picture this! Suggested instructions for guiding the Neuroscience of action imagery: A commentary on Krüger et al. (2022)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About