Cognitive Constraints in Motor Imagery

Abstract

Executed bimanual movements are prepared slower when moving to symbolically different than when moving to symbolically same targets and when targets are mapped to target locations in a left/right fashion than when they are mapped in an inner/outer fashion [Weigelt et al. (Psychol Res 71:238-447, 2007)]. We investigated whether these cognitive bimanual coordination constraints are observable in motor imagery. Participants performed fast bimanual reaching movements from start to target buttons. Symbolic target similarity and mapping were manipulated. Participants performed four action conditions: one execution and three imagination conditions. In the latter they indicated starting, ending, or starting and ending of the movement. We measured movement preparation (RT), movement execution (MT) and the combined duration of movement preparation and execution (RTMT). In all action conditions RTs and MTs were longer in movements towards different targets than in movements towards same targets. Further, RTMTs were longer when targets were mapped to target locations in a left/right fashion than when they were mapped in an inner/ outer fashion, again in all action conditions. RTMTs in imagination and execution were similar, apart from the imagination condition in which participants indicated the start and the end of the movement. Here MTs, but not RTs, were longer than in the execution condition. In conclusion, cognitive coordination constraints are present in the motor imagery of fast (\1600 ms) bimanual movements. Further, alternations between inhibition and execution may prolong the duration of motor imagery.

Is imagery better than reality? Performance in imagined dart throwing

“…Most importantly, for proximal action elements visual and kinesthetic representations in the IMA group did not significantly differ from the representations in the execution groups. This is different from a previous observation, which indicated weaker kinesthetic representations in imagined than in executed reaching (Dahm & Rieger, 2016). It might be that visual feedback from the hands is more important in reaching than in darts.…”

“…Thus, we asked participants to report how strongly they represented/how much attention they paid to different aspects of the dart throws in IMA and EXE. Because it has previously been shown that some task-related representations are weaker in MI than in ME (Dahm & Rieger, 2016; Rieger & Massen, 2014), we expected weaker representations in MI than in ME. We further expected a larger difference between MI and ME in novices than in experts, because representations of dart throws may be less precise in novices than in experts (Rieger, 2012; Schack, 2004).…”

“…Based on previous findings in a reaching task (Dahm & Rieger, 2016), we had speculated that for the proximal action elements of ME visual representations are less important than kinesthetic/tactile representations. This was observed in all groups.…”

“…Further, factors that influence ME durations often influence MI durations similarly (e.g. Dahm & Rieger, 2016; Decety & Michel, 1989). From such observations, it is concluded that MI and ME rely on similar mechanisms and that MI involves an internal simulation of the action (O’Shea & Moran, 2017).…”

Familiarity and complexity of a movement influences motor imagery in dancers: A cross‐sectional study

“…In the correlation analysis, positive associations of a moderate to strong magnitude were obtained between the time taken to generate motor images and the time taken for the execution of the real movement; previous studies found results similar to ours . It should be noted that the strongest correlations appeared between the execution of the movement and the generation of kinesthetic images in the three groups.…”