Viewing Instructions Accompanying Action Observation Modulate Corticospinal Excitability

Wright, David J.; McCormick, Sheree A.; Williams, Jacqueline; Holmes, Paul S.

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00017

Cited by 35 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here as well, no superiority effect of AO+MI on muscle function was found when compared to the AO+Attention, while both AO+Attention and AO+MI outperformed the control condition in terms of total force. Simultaneous MI and AO were found to significantly enhance corticomotor excitability in comparison to pure AO (Wright et al, 2016;Cengiz et al, 2018). Being instructed to observe passively, or with the intent to imitate the observed movement, or while simultaneously and actively imagining self-performance of the movement during observation facilitated corticospinal excitability to a greater extent than observation of a static hand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Being instructed to observe passively, or with the intent to imitate the observed movement, or while simultaneously and actively imagining self-performance of the movement during observation facilitated corticospinal excitability to a greater extent than observation of a static hand. In addition, corticospinal excitability was facilitated to a greater extent during combined observation and imagery as compared to passive observation (Wright et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effects of Instruction Manipulation on Motor Performance Following Action Observation

Frenkel‐Toledo

Einat

Kozol

2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of action observation (AO) on motor performance can be modulated by instruction. The effects of two top-down aspects of the instruction on motor performance have not been fully resolved: those related to attention to the observed task and the incorporation of motor imagery (MI) during AO. In addition, the immediate vs. 24-h retention test effects of those instruction's aspects are yet to be elucidated. Fortyeight healthy subjects were randomly instructed to: (1) observe reaching movement (RM) sequences toward five lighted units with the intention of reproducing the same sequence as fast and as accurate as possible (Intentional + Attentional group; AO+At);(2) observe the RMs sequence with the intention of reproducing the same sequence as fast and as accurate as possible and simultaneously to the observation to imagine performing the RMs (Intentional + attentional + MI group; AO+At+MI); and (3) observe the RMs sequence (Passive AO group). Subjects' performance was tested before and immediately after the AO and retested after 24 h. During each of the pretest, posttest, and retest, the subject performed RMs toward the units that were activated in the same order as the observed sequence. Occasionally, the sequence order was changed by beginning the sequence with a different activated unit. The outcome measures were: averaged response time of the RMs during the sequences, difference between the response time of the unexpected and expected RMs and percent of failures to reach the target within 1 s. The averaged response time and the difference between the response time of the unexpected and expected RMs were improved in all groups at posttest compared to pretest, regardless of instruction. Averaged response time was improved in the retest compared to the posttest only in the Passive AO group. The percent of failures across groups was higher in pretest compared to retest. Our findings suggest that manipulating top-down aspects of instruction by adding attention and MI to AO in an RM sequence task does not improve subsequent performance more than passive observation. Off-line learning of the sequence in the retention test was improved in comparison to posttest following passive observation only.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

The Effects of Instruction Manipulation on Motor Performance Following Action Observation

Frenkel‐Toledo

Einat

Kozol

2020

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, corticospinal excitability, measured through the amplitudes of motor evoked potentials, during both AO and MI of hand gestures is reliably higher than control conditions (e.g., Clark et al, 2004; Williams et al, 2012; see Naish et al, 2014; Grosprêtre et al, 2016 for reviews). Second, AO+MI produces significantly greater facilitation of corticospinal excitability compared to AO (Ohno et al, 2011; Wright et al, 2014, 2016) and, in some cases, MI as well (Sakamoto et al, 2009; Tsukazaki et al, 2012; Mouthon et al, 2015). These effects have been demonstrated across a variety of tasks, including simple and sequential finger movements (Wright et al, 2014, 2016), gross and fine motor tasks (Sakamoto et al, 2009; Ohno et al, 2011) and coordination tasks (Tsukazaki et al, 2012; Mouthon et al, 2015).…”

Section: The Effects Of Motor Imagery During Action Observation: Empimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have filmed the AO component from a first-person visual perspective (e.g., Villiger et al, 2013; Wright et al, 2014, 2016), while other studies have filmed the action from a third-person visual perspective (e.g., Eaves et al, 2014, 2016; Mouthon et al, 2015; Taube et al, 2015). In some cases, participants are instructed to explicitly image from a first person perspective, while in other cases they are only told to imagine themselves performing the observed movement, which may result in participants adopting either a first- or third-person imagery perspective, depending on their imagery perspective preference.…”

Section: Future Research Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2016

Self Cite

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 order to determine the sample size, a statistical power analysis was conducted using the G � Power software package. Since we were mainly interested in the effects of an observer's visual experience (factor A) or intention to imitate (factor B) on corticospinal excitability, the effect size for the analysis of factor A was set at f = 0.595 based on data from a previous between-groups TMS study [37], and that for factor B was set at f = 0.850 based on data from similar published TMS research [38], with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. The minimum sample size necessary for this experiment was thus estimated to be n = 25.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor activation is modulated by visual experience during cyclic gait observation: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been widely utilized to noninvasively explore the motor system during the observation of human movement. However, few studies have characterized motor cortex activity during periodic gait observation. Thus, this study examined the effects of an observer's visual experience and/or intention to imitate on corticospinal excitability during the observation of another's gait. Twenty-six healthy volunteers were included in this study and allocated to two different groups. Participants in the visual experience group had formal experience with gait observation (physical therapist training), while those in the control group did not. Motor-evoked potentials induced by TMS in the tibialis anterior and soleus muscles were measured as surrogates of corticospinal excitability. Participants were seated and, while resting, they observed a demonstrator's gait or observed it with the intention to subsequently reproduce it. Compared with the resting state, cyclic gait observation led to significant corticospinal facilitation in the tibialis anterior and soleus muscles. However, this pattern of corticospinal facilitation in the measured muscles was not coupled to the pattern of crural muscle activity during actual gait and was independent of the step cycle. This motor cortex facilitation effect during gait observation was enhanced by the observer's visual experience in a manner that was not step cycle-dependent, while the observer's intent to imitate did not affect corticospinal excitatory input to either muscle. In addition, visual experience did not modulate corticospinal excitability in gait-related crural muscles. Our findings indicate that motor cortex activity during gait observation is not in line with the timing of muscle activity during gait execution and is modulated by an individual's gait observation experience. These results suggest that visual experience acquired from repetitive gait observation may facilitate the motor system's control on bipedal walking, but may not promote the learning of muscle activity patterns.

show abstract

Viewing Instructions Accompanying Action Observation Modulate Corticospinal Excitability

Cited by 35 publications

References 56 publications

The Effects of Instruction Manipulation on Motor Performance Following Action Observation

The Effects of Instruction Manipulation on Motor Performance Following Action Observation

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

Motor activation is modulated by visual experience during cyclic gait observation: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About