Consistent under-reporting of task details in motor imagery research

Caenegem, Elise E Van; Hamoline, Gautier; Waltzing, Baptiste M; Hardwick, Robert M.

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108425

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A further consideration for both the reviewed and future explicit MI studies is that a full description of the instructions is provided. For example, Van Caenegem et al (2022) highlighted substantial underreporting of the instructed modality and perspective which can lead to challenges with replication, understanding and synthesizing of studies, which we would add is particularly important when studying heterogeneous conditions such as autism. Future studies would benefit from following the recently published Guidelines for Reporting Action Simulation Studies ( Moreno-Verdú et al, 2023 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor imagery in autism: a systematic review

Gowen,

Edmonds,

Poliakoff

2024

Front. Integr. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMotor Imagery (MI) is when an individual imagines performing an action without physically executing that action and is thought to involve similar neural processes used for execution of physical movement. As motor coordination difficulties are common in autistic individuals it is possible that these may affect MI ability. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the current knowledge around MI ability in autistic individuals.MethodsA systematic search was conducted for articles published before September 2023, following PRISMA guidance. Search engines were PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley Online Library and PsyArXiv. Inclusion criteria included: (a) Original peer-reviewed and pre-print publications; (b) Autistic and a non-autistic group (c) Implicit or explicit imagery tasks (d) Behavioral, neurophysiological or self-rating measures, (e) Written in the English language. Exclusion criteria were (a) Articles only about MI or autism (b) Articles where the autism data is not presented separately (c) Articles on action observation, recognition or imitation only (d) Review articles. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was conducted.ResultsSixteen studies across fourteen articles were included. Tasks were divided into implicit (unconscious) or explicit (conscious) MI. The implicit tasks used either hand (6) or body (4) rotation tasks. Explicit tasks consisted of perspective taking tasks (3), a questionnaire (1) and explicit instructions to imagine performing a movement (2). A MI strategy was apparent for the hand rotation task in autistic children, although may have been more challenging. Evidence was mixed and inconclusive for the remaining task types due to the varied range of different tasks and, measures conducted and design limitations. Further limitations included a sex bias toward males and the hand rotation task only being conducted in children.DiscussionThere is currently an incomplete understanding of MI ability in autistic individuals. The field would benefit from a battery of fully described implicit and explicit MI tasks, conducted across the same groups of autistic children and adults. Improved knowledge around MI in autistic individuals is important for understanding whether MI techniques may benefit motor coordination in some autistic people.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor imagery in autism: a systematic review

Gowen,

Edmonds,

Poliakoff

2024

Front. Integr. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior work has identified that the underreporting of task details is a common issue in the action simulation literature. A review of recent papers indicated that 64% of studies using motor imagery do not provide enough information to discern whether participants were instructed to use kinesthetic imagery, visual imagery, or a combination of both (Van Caenegem et al, 2022).…”

Section: Underreporting Of Task Detailsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines for reporting action simulation studies (GRASS): Proposals to improve reporting of research in motor imagery and action observation

Moreno-Verdú,

Hamoline,

Van Caenegem

et al. 2024

Neuropsychologia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Two further limitations of the previous work are relevant to mention here. First, the type of motor imagery (e.g., kinesthetic, visual, or mixed) and the perspective (first- or third-person perspective) were not described in the majority of the studies (Alimardani et al 2013 , 2016 ; Perez-Marcos et al 2009 ), which is a general problem in motor imagery research (Van Caenegem et al 2022 ). Thus, it is unclear precisely how the participants performed the motor imagery in this study and whether it involved kinesthetic-motor imagery from the first-person perspective as would be required for triggering the moving rubber hand illusion according to this illusion’s multisensory rules or visual imagery of action, which would not.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synchronous motor imagery and visual feedback of finger movement elicit the moving rubber hand illusion, at least in illusion-susceptible individuals

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent evidence suggests that imagined auditory and visual sensory stimuli can be integrated with real sensory information from a different sensory modality to change the perception of external events via cross-modal multisensory integration mechanisms. Here, we explored whether imagined voluntary movements can integrate visual and proprioceptive cues to change how we perceive our own limbs in space. Participants viewed a robotic hand wearing a glove repetitively moving its right index finger up and down at a frequency of 1 Hz, while they imagined executing the corresponding movements synchronously or asynchronously (kinesthetic-motor imagery); electromyography (EMG) from the participants’ right index flexor muscle confirmed that the participants kept their hand relaxed while imagining the movements. The questionnaire results revealed that the synchronously imagined movements elicited illusory ownership and a sense of agency over the moving robotic hand—the moving rubber hand illusion—compared with asynchronously imagined movements; individuals who affirmed experiencing the illusion with real synchronous movement also did so with synchronous imagined movements. The results from a proprioceptive drift task further demonstrated a shift in the perceived location of the participants’ real hand toward the robotic hand in the synchronous versus the asynchronous motor imagery condition. These results suggest that kinesthetic motor imagery can be used to replace veridical congruent somatosensory feedback from a moving finger in the moving rubber hand illusion to trigger illusory body ownership and agency, but only if the temporal congruence rule of the illusion is obeyed. This observation extends previous studies on the integration of mental imagery and sensory perception to the case of multisensory bodily awareness, which has potentially important implications for research into embodiment of brain–computer interface controlled robotic prostheses and computer-generated limbs in virtual reality.

show abstract

Consistent under-reporting of task details in motor imagery research

Cited by 9 publications

References 28 publications

Motor imagery in autism: a systematic review

Motor imagery in autism: a systematic review

Guidelines for reporting action simulation studies (GRASS): Proposals to improve reporting of research in motor imagery and action observation

Synchronous motor imagery and visual feedback of finger movement elicit the moving rubber hand illusion, at least in illusion-susceptible individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About