Target-oriented motor imagery for grasping action: different characteristics of brain activation between kinesthetic and visual imagery

Abstract

Motor imagery (MI) for target-oriented movements, which is a basis for functional activities of daily living, can be more appropriate than non-target-oriented MI as tasks to promote motor recovery or brain-computer interface (BCI) applications. This study aimed to explore different characteristics of brain activation among target-oriented kinesthetic imagery (KI) and visual imagery (VI) in the first-person (VI-1) and third-person (VI-3) perspectives. Eighteen healthy volunteers were evaluated for MI ability, trained for the three types of target-oriented MIs, and scanned using 3 T functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) under MI and perceptual control conditions, presented in a block design. Post-experimental questionnaires were administered after fMRI. Common brain regions activated during the three types of MI were the left premotor area and inferior parietal lobule, irrespective of the MI modalities or perspectives. Contrast analyses showed significantly increased brain activation only in the contrast of KI versus VI-1 and KI versus VI-3 for considerably extensive brain regions, including the supplementary motor area and insula. Neural activity in the orbitofrontal cortex and cerebellum during VI-1 and KI was significantly correlated with MI ability measured by mental chronometry and a self-reported questionnaire, respectively. These results can provide a basis in developing MI-based protocols for neurorehabilitation to improve motor recovery and BCI training in severely paralyzed individuals.

Differential Influence of the Dorsal Premotor and Primary Somatosensory Cortex on Corticospinal Excitability during Kinesthetic and Visual Motor Imagery: A Low-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study

“…In a similar vein, that CSE facilitation during dynamic kMI is affected by S1 rTMS is in keeping with neuroimaging studies showing the involvement of S1 activation, in particular during kMI [25,29,30]. Remarkably, our findings support the notion that connectivity between S1 and M1 during MI may be inhibitory [24], since we found that transient suppression of S1 boosts the facilitation of CSE during kMI.…”

“…Our finding of decreased muscle-specific facilitation of CSE during kMI following rTMS over the dPMC falls in line with previous evidence of strong activity of this area during kMI [25,26,29,30]. The dPMC activation during kMI was linked to an increase in the MEP amplitude of hand muscles following spTMS over the relative OSP [69].…”

“…In particular, since the pioneering neuroimaging studies comparing kMI and vMI [23,24], kMI is associated with greater involvement of anterior motor areas, while vMI more consistently recruits posterior sensory areas. Recent studies, however, have reported mixed results [25][26][27][28][29]. These studies have shown PMC activation either during both kMI and vMI [25,26] or only during vMI but not kMI [27], whereas meta-analytic evidence shows a substantial overlap between the two modalities but more extensive recruitment of fronto-parietal sensorimotor circuits in the case of kMI [28].…”

The Effects of Instruction Manipulation on Motor Performance Following Action Observation

“…Longer movement reaction time was the result of decreased expectation of the required response (Brown and Frank, 1987;Hodges and Richardson, 1999). Last, more focused instruction directing subjects to feel the movement and mentally perceive muscle contractions and stretching might have ensured that the MI group subjects experienced similar kinesthetic imagery, which could potentially have stronger behavioral (Féry and Morizot, 2000; but see also Farahat et al, 2004;Taktek et al, 2008) and neural effects than visual imagery (Stinear et al, 2006;Guillot et al, 2009;Lee et al, 2019). In addition, instructing participants to imagine the RM sequence from an egocentric viewpoint may have also refined the resulting effects because this viewpoint was found to facilitate more efficient imitative behavior than the allocentric viewpoint (Watanabe and Higuchi, 2016).…”

Effects of actual and imagined music-cued gait training on motor functioning and brain activity in people with multiple sclerosis: protocol of a randomised parallel multicentre trial

“…64 Open access MI ability MI ability should be assessed using at least two different approaches, 67 hence the Kinaesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire, 68 69 using a German short version (KVIQ-G-10) 68 and a mental chronometry (MC) test. [70][71][72] The KVIQ-(G)10 is patient-reported and assessoradministered and measures visual and kinaesthetic MI ability in neurological patients using five items. 69 Scoring is achieved using a 5-point Likert scale from 1='no image' to 5='image as clear as seeing' (visual subscale) and from 1='no sensation' to 5='as intense as executing the action' (kinaesthetic subscale).…”