Age-Related Differences in Strategy in the Hand Mental Rotation Task

Abstract

Mental imagery of movement is a potentially valuable rehabilitation task, but its therapeutic efficacy may depend on the specific cognitive strategy employed. Individuals use two main strategies to perform the hand mental rotation task (HMRT), which involves determining whether a visual image depicts a left or right hand. One is the motor imagery (MI) strategy, which involves mentally simulating one’s own hand movements. In this case, task performance as measured by response time (RT) is subject to a medial–lateral effect wherein the RT is reduced when the fingertips are directed medially, presumably as the actual motion would be easier. The other strategy is to employ visual imagery (VI), which involves mentally rotating the picture and is not subject to this medial–lateral effect. The rehabilitative benefits of the HMRT are thought to depend on the MI strategy (mental practice), so it is essential to examine the effects of individual factors such as age, image perspective (e.g., palm or back of the hand), and innate ability (as indicated by baseline RT) on the strategy adopted. When presented with pictures of the palm, all subjects in the current study used the MI strategy, regardless of age and ability. In contrast, when subjects were presented with pictures of the back of the hand, the VI strategy predominated among the young age group regardless of performance, while the strategy used by middle-age and elderly groups depended on performance ability. In the middle-age and elderly groups, the VI approach predominated in those with high performance skill, whereas the MI strategy predominated among those with low performance skill. Thus, higher-skill middle-aged and elderly individuals may not necessarily form a motion image during the HMRT, potentially limiting rehabilitation efficacy.

Mental rotation of hands and objects in ageing and Parkinson’s disease: Differentiating motor imagery and visuospatial ability

“…The difference in results for back and palm stimuli in the HLT echo previous findings in healthy young participants (e.g., Brady et al, 2011;Ter Horst et al, 2010), suggesting that visual and kinaesthetic strategies may be differentially recruited in laterality judgements for the different surfaces of the hand, while also indicating that these may differ in susceptibility to impairment in ageing and neurodegeneration. It has been proposed that judging laterality from the back of the hand relies more on visual processes, while the palm is more likely to evoke covert motor simulation (Conson et al, 2020;Nagashima et al, 2021). With explicit measures of MI, in which participants rate the vividness of their imagery in different modalities, older adults have shown a reduction in dominance of visual over kinaesthetic imagery compared with younger adults (Malouin et al, 2010).…”

“…Hand laterality judgement has been found to be slowed in older adults (Devlin & Wilson, 2010;Saimpont et al, 2009;Wang et al, 2019), in particular for lateral rotations (De Simone et al, 2013;Saimpont et al, 2009), and for the non-dominant side (Saimpont et al, 2009). Older adults have also exhibited less of a clear distinction in performance between back and palm views of the hand (Nagashima et al, 2021): while younger adults consistently showed an effect of biomechanical constraints for the palm only, older adults showed more variability, with some exhibiting a mediallateral difference for the back view. The authors interpreted this as indicating a "motor imagery" strategy as opposed to the "visual imagery" strategy typically assumed for this view.…”

“…Typically, participants are slower to recognise images of the palm, and exhibit stronger biomechanical constraint effects for this view (Brady et al, 2011;Nagashima et al, 2021;Ter Horst et al, 2010;Zapparoli et al, 2014). Although this may reflect the greater physical difficulty in rotating one's own hands with the palm facing up (Conson et al, 2020), it has also been suggested that viewing these different surfaces of the hand may evoke different strategies, whereby motor imagery is more likely to be involved in judging palms, while a more visual strategy may be engaged by the back view (Conson et al, 2020;Nagashima et al, 2021). Visual and sensorimotor familiarity may also play a role in the back/palm difference, since one's own hands are more frequently viewed from the back, while the palm may evoke greater kinaesthetic imagery due to its involvement in manual actions (Bläsing et al, 2013;Conson et al, 2020).…”

Mental rotation of hands and objects in ageing and Parkinson’s disease: differentiating motor imagery and visuospatial ability

“…Differences in HLT performance are also found according to whether stimuli depict the back or palm view of the hand. Typically, participants are slower to recognise images of the palm, and exhibit stronger biomechanical constraint effects for this view (Brady et al 2011 ; de Simone et al 2013 ; Nagashima et al 2021 ; Ter Horst et al 2010 ; Zapparoli et al 2014 ). Although this may in part reflect the greater physical difficulty in rotating one’s own hands with the palm facing up (Conson et al 2020 ), it has also been suggested that viewing the different surfaces of the hand may evoke different strategies, whereby kinesthetic MI is more likely to be involved in judging palm stimuli, while a more visual strategy may be engaged by the back view (Conson et al 2020 ; Nagashima et al 2021 ).…”

“…Typically, participants are slower to recognise images of the palm, and exhibit stronger biomechanical constraint effects for this view (Brady et al 2011 ; de Simone et al 2013 ; Nagashima et al 2021 ; Ter Horst et al 2010 ; Zapparoli et al 2014 ). Although this may in part reflect the greater physical difficulty in rotating one’s own hands with the palm facing up (Conson et al 2020 ), it has also been suggested that viewing the different surfaces of the hand may evoke different strategies, whereby kinesthetic MI is more likely to be involved in judging palm stimuli, while a more visual strategy may be engaged by the back view (Conson et al 2020 ; Nagashima et al 2021 ). Visual and sensorimotor familiarity may contribute to the back/palm difference, since one’s own hands are more frequently viewed from the back, while the palm may evoke stronger kinesthetic imagery due to its involvement in manual actions (Bläsing et al 2013 ; Conson et al 2020 ).…”