Using thermal, gross pressure, and muscle ischemia testing procedures to induce pain, an effort was made to determine the relationship between pain response and athletic participation by measuring the pain threshold and pain tolerance levels of three groups of Ss, i.e., contact athletes, non-contact athletes, and non-athletes. There were no significant differences between groups in pain threshold, but a highly significant difference between groups on pain tolerance, wherein the contact athlete tolerated more pain than the non-contact athlete, who in turn tolerated more pain than the non-athlete. Correlation between pain threshold and pain tolerance was .38 and that between the two measures of pain tolerance, .82.

Male college students (N= 39) learned two novel perceptual motor tasks differing in demand across a cognitive-motor continuum, under conditions of physical practice (PP), mental practice (MP), or no practice (NP). On each task, the PP group was given 12 actual trials; the MP group received one actual, nine mental, then two actual trials; and the NP group received one actual trial, 10 minutes rest, then two actual trials. Results showed no difference in learning between MP and NP groups on the predominantly motor task, with the PP group significantly superior to both. On the predominantly cognitive task, however, the MP group performed as well as the PP group, and both were significantly superior to the NP group. Two additional questions concerning the influences of imaging ability and relative frequency of mental practice rendered equivocal results.

To test the cognitive-motor hypothesis, mental practice effects were examined using two tasks judged to differ only in the degree of motor involvement. Male college students (N = 60) learned either the high motor task or the low motor task under conditions of physical practice (PP), mental practice (MP), or no practice (NP). On each task, the PP group received 12 physical trials; the MP group received one physical, nine mental, then two physical trials; and the NP group received one physical trial, a rest period, and then two physical trials. As predicted, the relative effectiveness of mental practice differed between the two tasks. On the low motor task there was no difference between MP and PP and both groups were superior to NP (p < .05). For the high motor task MP was no better than NP and PP was superior to both (p < .05). It was concluded that performance improvement through mental practice takes place predominantly within the cognitive aspects of motor skills.

To investigate the mental imagery aspect of mental rehearsal, 80 male traffic officers from the California Highway Patrol learned a novel balancing task during a single session. Based on a pretest questionnaire, subjects were categorized as imagers, nonimagers, or occasional imagers and assigned to one of six groups accordingly: imagers asked to use imagery in mental rehearsal, imagers asked to try not to use imagery, nonimagers asked not to use imagery, nonimagers asked to try to use imagery, physical practice, or no practice. It was hypothesized that a person's preferred cognitive style would prove most effective for use in mental rehearsal and that using another style would cause a decrement in learning. Improvement scores indicated no differences between subjects who initially reported typically using imagery and those reported typically not using it, but groups asked to use imagery in mental rehearsal were superior to those asked not to (p<.001). Overall, physical practice was better than the grouped mental rehearsal conditions, and both were better than no practice. Subjects reporting strong visual imagery were superior to those with weak visual images (p<.03), and those reporting strong kinesthetic imagery were superior to those with weak kinesthetic images (p<.03). Regardless of one's typical cognitive style, the use of vivid imagery appears quite important for enhancement of motor performance through mental rehearsal.

No abstract