Effects of Action Observation and Action Observation Combined with Motor Imagery on Maximal Isometric Strength

Rienzo, Franck Di; Joassy, Pierric; Kanthack, Thiago Ferreira Dias; MacIntyre, Tadhg; Debarnot, Ursula; Blache, Yoann; Hautier, Christophe; Collet, Christian; Guillot, Aymeric

doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.08.025

Cited by 31 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 104 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To our knowledge, only two studies directly compared the effects of AO+Attention (AO+At) vs. AO+MI on subsequent motor performance (Bek et al, 2016;Di Rienzo et al, 2019). In the study by Bek et al (2016), healthy participants were asked to observe and imitate (i.e., intentional observation) human hand movement sequences, while movement kinematics were recorded.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kinematics of the imitated movements were similarly modulated in the MI and Attention groups, being closer in duration, peak velocity, and amplitude to the observed model compared with controls. In a study by Di Rienzo et al (2019), healthy participants were asked to carefully observe an athlete performing a maximal voluntary contraction while attending to specific characteristics and refraining from MI or imagining themselves attempting to lift the platform while feeling the contraction. The control group passively watched a video documentary about shooting baskets (basketball).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The effects of directed attention and incorporated MI to the observed action on behavioral outcomes are limited. In the two relevant studies mentioned above (Bek et al, 2016;Di Rienzo et al, 2019), only the immediate effects were investigated. Whereas AO was found to trigger consolidation processes that lead to a stabilization of the new motor skill and off-line gains (Trempe et al, 2011;Hesseg et al, 2016), the delayed retest effects as a function of instruction manipulation (relating to attention and MI during AO) is yet to be elucidated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas AO was found to trigger consolidation processes that lead to a stabilization of the new motor skill and off-line gains (Trempe et al, 2011;Hesseg et al, 2016), the delayed retest effects as a function of instruction manipulation (relating to attention and MI during AO) is yet to be elucidated. In addition, although Bek et al (2016) andDi Rienzo et al (2019) studied the effects of AO+Attention or AO+MI, they did not investigate the combined effect of AO+Attention+MI. Here, we compared the immediate and 24-h retention test effects of combined intentional AO+Attention, as well as intentional AO+Attention+MI and non-intentional observation (passive AO).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We hypothesized that: (1) subsequent performance will improve following passive AO due to implicit learning (Mattar and Gribble, 2005); (2) subsequent performance will improve to a greater extent following simultaneous engagement in attention and imagination of the observed task than after non-intentional passive AO. This is based on previous evidence concerning the positive effects on subsequent motor performance of attending to or imagining the observed task (Janelle et al, 2003;Badets et al, 2006;Bach et al, 2007;Gowen et al, 2010;Hayes et al, 2014;Bek et al, 2016), together with neurophysiological evidence for significantly greater cortico-motor activity during AO+MI as compared to AO alone (Nedelko et al, 2012;Taube et al, 2014;Eaves et al, 2016a;Hardwick et al, 2018); (3) subsequent performance will improve to a similar extent following simultaneous engagement in attention and imagination of the observed task, given that a direct comparison between AO+MI and AO+attention indicated a similar effect on kinematics and the force of the imitated movements (Bek et al, 2016;Di Rienzo et al, 2019); and (4) AO-related behavioral effects will be reflected in both averaged response time and segmental response time of reaching movement (RM) toward a specific direction. Since total sequential movement time and its specific segmental intermediate time improved following AO and hand trajectories improved more when tested in the same environment than in a different one (opposite direction; Mattar and Gribble, 2005), we chose to measure both the average response times of all movements and the difference between the response time of an unexpected and expected movement (toward the opposite and expected direction; respectively) toward a specific direction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

The acute effects of action observation on muscle strength/weakness and corticospinal excitability in older adults

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Muscle weakness is a critical problem facing many older adults. Interventions targeting nervous system plasticity may show promise in enhancing strength. The purpose of this study was to examine the acute effects of action observation on muscular strength characteristics and corticospinal excitability in older adults. Isometric wrist flexion strength characteristics and corticospinal excitability of the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) were measured in 14 older adults (mean age = 73 years) in response to observation of (1) STRONG contractions of the hand/wrist, (2) WEAK contractions of the hand/wrist, and (3) a CONTROL condition. Results from repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated that rate of torque development at 200 ms (RTD200) significantly decreased from PRE to POST observation for CONTROL and WEAK, but not STRONG. No other ANOVAs were significant. However, effect sizes indicated that maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) peak torque showed moderate declines following WEAK ( d = − 0.571) and CONTROL ( d = − 0.636), but not STRONG ( d = 0.024). Similarly, rate of torque development at 30 (RTD30), 50 (RTD50), and 200 (RTD200) ms showed large declines from PRE to POST after WEAK and CONTROL, but small changes following STRONG. FDI motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitude tended to increase over time, but these results were variable. There was a pronounced effect from PRE to 8MIN ( d = 0.954) during all conditions. Action observation of strong contractions may exert a preservatory effect on muscular strength. More work is needed to determine whether this is modulated by increased corticospinal excitability. The study was prospectively registered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03946709).

show abstract

Enhancing motor imagery practice using synchronous action observation

Eaves

Hodges

Buckingham

et al. 2022

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we discuss a variety of ways in which practising motor actions by means of motor imagery (MI) can be enhanced via synchronous action observation (AO), that is, by AO + MI. We review the available research on the (mostly facilitatory) behavioural effects of AO + MI practice in the early stages of skill acquisition, discuss possible theoretical explanations, and consider several issues related to the choice and presentation schedules of suitable models. We then discuss considerations related to AO + MI practice at advanced skill levels, including expertise effects, practical recommendations such as focussing attention on specific aspects of the observed action, using just-ahead models, and possible effects of the perspective in which the observed action is presented. In section “Coordinative AO + MI”, we consider scenarios where the observer imagines performing an action that complements or responds to the observed action, as a promising and yet under-researched application of AO + MI training. In section “The dual action simulation hypothesis of AO + MI”, we review the neurocognitive hypothesis that AO + MI practice involves two parallel action simulations, and we consider opportunities for future research based on recent neuroimaging work on parallel motor representations. In section “AO + MI training in motor rehabilitation”, we review applications of AO, MI, and AO + MI training in the field of neurorehabilitation. Taken together, this evidence-based, exploratory review opens a variety of avenues for future research and applications of AO + MI practice, highlighting several clear advantages over the approaches of purely AO- or MI-based practice.

show abstract

Effects of Action Observation and Action Observation Combined with Motor Imagery on Maximal Isometric Strength

Cited by 31 publications

References 104 publications

The Effects of Instruction Manipulation on Motor Performance Following Action Observation

The Effects of Instruction Manipulation on Motor Performance Following Action Observation

The acute effects of action observation on muscle strength/weakness and corticospinal excitability in older adults

Enhancing motor imagery practice using synchronous action observation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About