Motor imagery of hand actions: Decoding the content of motor imagery from brain activity in frontal and parietal motor areas

Pilgramm, Sebastian; Haas, Benjamin de; Helm, Fabian; Zentgraf, Karen; Stark, Rudolf; Munzert, Jörn; Krüger, Britta

doi:10.1002/hbm.23015

Cited by 138 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 81 publications

(116 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous virtual lesion studies of the right parietal lobe demonstrated degraded accuracy of MI (Fleming, Stinear, & Byblow, ). In a recent study, the activation pattern within the parietal lobe (but also the premotor cortex) was associated with imagined action content (Pilgramm et al, )—again increase in demand to remember the movement pattern increases recruitment within processing resources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Motor imagery training: Kinesthetic imagery strategy and inferior parietal fMRI activation

Lebon

Horn

Domín

et al. 2018

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor imagery (MI) is the mental simulation of action frequently used by professionals in different fields. However, with respect to performance, well-controlled functional imaging studies on MI training are sparse. We investigated changes in fMRI representation going along with performance changes of a finger sequence (error and velocity) after MI training in 48 healthy young volunteers. Before training, we tested the vividness of kinesthetic and visual imagery. During tests, participants were instructed to move or to imagine moving the fingers of the right hand in a specific order. During MI training, participants repeatedly imagined the sequence for 15 min. Imaging analysis was performed using a full-factorial design to assess brain changes due to imagery training. We also used regression analyses to identify those who profited from training (performance outcome and gain) with initial imagery scores (vividness) and fMRI activation magnitude during MI at pre-test (MI ). After training, error rate decreased and velocity increased. We combined both parameters into a common performance index. FMRI activation in the left inferior parietal lobe (IPL) was associated with MI and increased over time. In addition, fMRI activation in the right IPL during MI was associated with high initial kinesthetic vividness. High kinesthetic imagery vividness predicted a high performance after training. In contrast, occipital activation, associated with visual imagery strategies, showed a negative predictive value for performance. Our data echo the importance of high kinesthetic vividness for MI training outcome and consider IPL as a key area during MI and through MI training.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Motor imagery training: Kinesthetic imagery strategy and inferior parietal fMRI activation

Lebon

Horn

Domín

et al. 2018

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The noise level of visual stimulus representations in retinotopic cortex is affected by the (in)congruency of co-occurring sounds (de Haas et al 2013b). Category-specific sounds and visual imagery can be decoded from early visual cortex, even with eyes closed , and the same is true for imagined hand actions (Pilgramm et al 2016). At the same time, the location of visual stimuli can bias the perceived origin of sounds (Thomas 1941), and a visible face articulating a syllable can bias the perception of a concurrently presented (different) syllable (McGurk & MacDonald 1976).…”

Section: Andy Clarkmentioning

confidence: 93%

Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects

Firestone¹,

Scholl²

2015

Behav Brain Sci

780

764

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:What determines what we see? In contrast to the traditional "modular" understanding of perception, according to which visual processing is encapsulated from higher-level cognition, a tidal wave of recent research alleges that states such as beliefs, desires, emotions, motivations, intentions, and linguistic representations exert direct, top-down influences on what we see. There is a growing consensus that such effects are ubiquitous, and that the distinction between perception and cognition may itself be unsustainable. We argue otherwise: None of these hundreds of studies -either individually or collectively -provides compelling evidence for true top-down effects on perception, or "cognitive penetrability." In particular, and despite their variety, we suggest that these studies all fall prey to only a handful of pitfalls. And whereas abstract theoretical challenges have failed to resolve this debate in the past, our presentation of these pitfalls is empirically anchored: In each case, we show not only how certain studies could be susceptible to the pitfall (in principle), but also how several alleged top-down effects actually are explained by the pitfall (in practice). Moreover, these pitfalls are perfectly general, with each applying to dozens of other top-down effects. We conclude by extracting the lessons provided by these pitfalls into a checklist that future work could use to convincingly demonstrate top-down effects on visual perception. The discovery of substantive top-down effects of cognition on perception would revolutionize our understanding of how the mind is organized; but without addressing these pitfalls, no such empirical report will license such exciting conclusions.

show abstract

“…An interesting next step could now involve a more in-depth examination using multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA) of fMRI data into the precise anatomical substrates involved for different AO+MI states. Pilgramm et al (2016) recently used MVPA to discriminate between different types of imagined actions purely on the basis of brain activity recorded in frontal and parietal areas, while Zabicki et al (2016) distinguished between different action types within two modalities (imagined and executed). Furthermore, Filimon et al (2015) also decoded the neural signatures for independent AO, MI and execution of a reaching action within brain areas jointly activated by all three modalities.…”

Section: Conceptualizing Concurrent Action Observation and Motor Imagmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor Imagery during Action Observation: A Brief Review of Evidence, Theory and Future Research Opportunities

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) have traditionally been viewed as two separate techniques, which can both be used alongside physical practice to enhance motor learning and rehabilitation. Their independent use has largely been shown to be effective, and there is clear evidence that the two processes can elicit similar activity in the motor system. Building on these well-established findings, research has now turned to investigate the effects of their combined use. In this article, we first review the available neurophysiological and behavioral evidence for the effects of combined action observation and motor imagery (AO+MI) on motor processes. We next describe a conceptual framework for their combined use, and then discuss several areas for future research into AO+MI processes. In this review, we advocate a more integrated approach to AO+MI techniques than has previously been adopted by movement scientists and practitioners alike. We hope that this early review of an emergent body of research, along with a related set of research questions, can inspire new work in this area. We are optimistic that future research will further confirm if, how, and when this combined approach to AO+MI can be more effective in motor learning and rehabilitation settings, relative to the more traditional application of MI or AO independently.

show abstract

Motor imagery of hand actions: Decoding the content of motor imagery from brain activity in frontal and parietal motor areas

Cited by 138 publications

References 81 publications

Motor imagery training: Kinesthetic imagery strategy and inferior parietal fMRI activation

Motor imagery training: Kinesthetic imagery strategy and inferior parietal fMRI activation

Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects

Motor Imagery during Action Observation: A Brief Review of Evidence, Theory and Future Research Opportunities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About