To What Extent Can Motor Imagery Replace Motor Execution While Learning a Fine Motor Skill?

Abstract

Motor imagery is generally thought to share common mechanisms with motor execution. In the present study, we examined to what extent learning a fine motor skill by motor imagery may substitute physical practice. Learning effects were assessed by manipulating the proportion of motor execution and motor imagery trials. Additionally, learning effects were compared between participants with an explicit motor imagery instruction and a control group. A Go/NoGo discrete sequence production (DSP) task was employed, wherein a five-stimulus sequence presented on each trial indicated the required sequence of finger movements after a Go signal. In the case of a NoGo signal, participants either had to imagine carrying out the response sequence (the motor imagery group), or the response sequence had to be withheld (the control group). Two practice days were followed by a final test day on which all sequences had to be executed. Learning effects were assessed by computing response times (RTs) and the percentages of correct responses (PCs). The electroencephalogram (EEG ) was additionally measured on this test day to examine whether motor preparation and the involvement of visual short term memory (VST M) depended on the amount of physical/mental practice. Accuracy data indicated strong learning effects. However, a substantial amount of physical practice was required to reach an optimal speed. EEG results suggest the involvement of VST M for sequences that had less or no physical practice in both groups. The absence of differences between the motor imagery and the control group underlines the possibility that motor preparation may actually resemble motor imagery.

Investigating Priming Effects of Physical Practice on Motor Imagery-Induced Event-Related Desynchronization

“…In the present study, Group MI did not improve significantly in any measure in the pre-post comparison, suggesting that MI practice including a brief familiarization phase cannot entirely replace ME when acquiring a more complex motor task. This is in line with the findings of several other studies (Mulder et al, 2004;Gentili et al, 2010;Sobierajewicz et al, 2016). During mental practice without a properly acquired internal representation of the to-be-learned movement, the state estimation (i.e., sensorimotor state, which is related e.g.…”

Improving Dental Students Fine Motor Skills by Visualization and Mental Imagery: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

“…Several studies have shown that imagery is useful to acquire and improve motor skills, since imagining an action, activates the same neural areas as when this is performed physically (Sobierajewicz et al, 2016). A systematic review (Rao et al, 2015) of nine studies evaluated the role of mental training in the acquisition of surgical technical skills and more than half of these trials showed beneficial effects of mental training.…”

How effector-specific is the effect of sequence learning by motor execution and motor imagery?

“…In our earlier research, we were especially interested in the learning of a fine sequential motor skill by motor imagery (Sobierajewicz et al 2016 , 2017 ), which can be defined as the mental simulation of a movement without producing an overt action (Jeannerod 2001 ). A question that emerged from our studies was whether learning by motor imagery involves a cognitive and/or a motor level.…”

“…It is well known that motor skills can be acquired not only by repeating (i.e., physical practice) a particular movement, but also by motor imagery (Jeannerod 2001 ; Allami et al 2008 ; Doussoulin and Rehbein 2011 ). It has additionally been argued that motor imagery relies on similar processes and obeys the same rules as motor execution (e.g., with regard to the timing and brain mechanisms underlying motor imagery and motor execution (Decety et al 1989 ; Xu et al 2014 ; Sobierajewicz et al 2016 , 2017 ). However, the effect of motor imagery on sequence learning is not as strong as the effect of physical practice (Feltz and Landers 1983 ; Hird et al 1991 ; Gentili 2006 ; Gentili et al 2010 ; Schuster et al 2011 ; Debarnot et al 2015 ; Gentili and Papaxanthis 2015 ; Sobierajewicz et al 2016 ), indicating that motor execution is more effective in acquisition of a motor skill.…”

“…It has additionally been argued that motor imagery relies on similar processes and obeys the same rules as motor execution (e.g., with regard to the timing and brain mechanisms underlying motor imagery and motor execution (Decety et al 1989 ; Xu et al 2014 ; Sobierajewicz et al 2016 , 2017 ). However, the effect of motor imagery on sequence learning is not as strong as the effect of physical practice (Feltz and Landers 1983 ; Hird et al 1991 ; Gentili 2006 ; Gentili et al 2010 ; Schuster et al 2011 ; Debarnot et al 2015 ; Gentili and Papaxanthis 2015 ; Sobierajewicz et al 2016 ), indicating that motor execution is more effective in acquisition of a motor skill. Although previous findings indicate that motor imagery improves the accuracy and may enhance the speed of a movement (Sobierajewicz et al 2016 ), the relevance of the execution mode while learning a fine motor skill (i.e., small finger or hand movements such as writing, tapping or drawing) with motor imagery was not yet examined.…”