Layered Stimulus Response Training Improves Motor Imagery Ability and Movement Execution

Williams, Sarah E.; Cooley, Sam J.; Cumming, Jennifer

doi:10.1123/jsep.35.1.60

Cited by 77 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, layering the PETTLEP elements during an imagery intervention is yet to be done. Furthermore, this approach may be effective as imagery, similar to physical skills, can be broken down into more manageable chunks and improved with practice (Hall, 2001;Williams et al, 2013). For example, children are able to learn a skill quicker through breaking it down, or "chaining" (Slocum & Tiger, 2011).…”

Section: Layering Pettlep Elements and Imagery Abilitymentioning

confidence: 97%

A PETTLEP Imagery Intervention with Young Athletes

Quinton

Cumming

Gray

et al. 2014

Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The PETTLEP model of imagery (Holmes & Collins, 2001) was designed to produce more effective imagery. The PETTLEP acronym represents seven key elements (i.e., Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Learning, Emotion, and Perspective) which should be considered by researchers and practitioners when delivering an imagery intervention. It is thought that by including these elements the functional equivalence at the neural level between imagery and performance will be increased. A number of interventions have supported the use of PETTLEP imagery in improving performance of motor skills (e.g., Smith, Wright, Allsopp, & Westhead, 2007. To date, however, these PETTLEP interventions have mainly been applied to adult populations with very few conducted with children. The aim of the present study was to test the effects of a 5-week layered-PETTLEP intervention (i.e., adding PETTLEP elements progressively) on movement imagery ability and performance of a soccer task in children. A secondary aim was to examine the potential for a sport-specific nutritional intervention to serve as an effective control condition. Thirty-six children (34 male, 2 female, M age ¼ 9.72 years, SD ¼ 2.05) from a local futsal club were age matched and then randomly allocated to either a PETTLEP imagery intervention group or a nutrition control group. Pre-testing consisted of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire for Children and a dribbling and passing motor task. Posttest protocol was the same with the addition of a nutritional knowledge test. Despite the imagery intervention producing no significant improvements in imagery ability or motor task performance, there was a significant correlation at post-test for the imagery group between age and external visual (r ¼ 0.56, p < 0.05) and kinesthetic imagery ability (r ¼ 0.57, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the nutrition group scored significantly higher than the imagery group on the nutrition test (p < 0.05). This study highlights important aspects that need to be considered when delivering PETTLEP imagery interventions to children. This study is also one of the first studies to show that control groups, especially with children, can be used for educational purposes. Similar control groups should be considered in future research, as it means interventions can not only be used in a practical manner to improve sporting performance but also to educate and improve knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Layering Pettlep Elements and Imagery Abilitymentioning

confidence: 97%

A PETTLEP Imagery Intervention with Young Athletes

Quinton

Cumming

Gray

et al. 2014

Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In such cases, one potentially beneficial method of delivering AO+MI interventions may be to introduce the imagery component of the intervention in a gradual manner. In the sport domain, Williams et al (2013) tested a method of delivering imagery interventions called layered stimulus response training (LSRT). This process involves first reducing the mental simulation to contain only those imagery components that the participant is able to generate with ease.…”

Section: Future Research Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor Imagery during Action Observation: A Brief Review of Evidence, Theory and Future Research Opportunities

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) have traditionally been viewed as two separate techniques, which can both be used alongside physical practice to enhance motor learning and rehabilitation. Their independent use has largely been shown to be effective, and there is clear evidence that the two processes can elicit similar activity in the motor system. Building on these well-established findings, research has now turned to investigate the effects of their combined use. In this article, we first review the available neurophysiological and behavioral evidence for the effects of combined action observation and motor imagery (AO+MI) on motor processes. We next describe a conceptual framework for their combined use, and then discuss several areas for future research into AO+MI processes. In this review, we advocate a more integrated approach to AO+MI techniques than has previously been adopted by movement scientists and practitioners alike. We hope that this early review of an emergent body of research, along with a related set of research questions, can inspire new work in this area. We are optimistic that future research will further confirm if, how, and when this combined approach to AO+MI can be more effective in motor learning and rehabilitation settings, relative to the more traditional application of MI or AO independently.

show abstract

“…In this stage, great benefit can be made from "layering" (e.g., Williams, Cooley, & Cumming, 2013) holistic, rhythm-based sources of information (MacPherson, Collins, & Obhi, 2009) into mental imagery use as the athlete completes the placement of the technique firmly to automatic control. According to MacPherson et al (2009) continued use of part skill "cues" would be detrimental under conditions of competitive stress because the movement remains fragmented, therefore disrupting the necessary flow and timing of the entire skill.…”

Section: Aim: Internalize the Change To Subconscious Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing the Five-A Model of Technical Refinement: Key Roles of the Sport Psychologist

Carson¹,

Collins²

2016

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasing evidence for the significant contribution provided by sport psychologists within applied coaching environments. However, this rarely considers their skills/knowledge being applied when refining athletes' already learned and well-established motor skills. Therefore, this article focuses on how a sport psychologist might assist a coach and athlete to implement long-term permanent and pressure proof refinements. It highlights key contributions at each stage of the Five-A model-designed to deliver these important outcomes-providing both psychomotor and psychosocial input to the support delivery. By employing these recommendations, sport psychologists can make multiple positive contributions to completion of this challenging task.

show abstract

Layered Stimulus Response Training Improves Motor Imagery Ability and Movement Execution

Cited by 77 publications

References 26 publications

A PETTLEP Imagery Intervention with Young Athletes

A PETTLEP Imagery Intervention with Young Athletes

Motor Imagery during Action Observation: A Brief Review of Evidence, Theory and Future Research Opportunities

Implementing the Five-A Model of Technical Refinement: Key Roles of the Sport Psychologist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About