Motor Representations and Practice Affect Brain Systems Underlying Imagery: An fMRI Study of Internal Imagery in Novices and Active High Jumpers

Abstract

This study used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate differences in brain activity between one group of active high jumpers and one group of high jumping novices (controls) when performing motor imagery of a high jump. It was also investigated how internal imagery training affects neural activity. The results showed that active high jumpers primarily activated motor areas, e.g. pre-motor cortex and cerebellum. Novices activated visual areas, e.g. superior occipital cortex. Imagery training resulted in a reduction of activity in parietal cortex. These results indicate that in order to use an internal perspective during motor imagery of a complex skill, one must have well established motor representations of the skill which then translates into a motor/internal pattern of brain activity. If not, an external perspective will be used and the corresponding brain activation will be a visual/external pattern. Moreover, the findings imply that imagery training reduces the activity in parietal cortex suggesting that imagery is performed more automatic and results in a more efficient motor representation more easily accessed during motor performance. MOTOR REPRESENTATIONS AND PRACTICE AF-FECT BRAIN SYSTEMS UNDERLYING IMAGERY: An fMRI Study of Internal Imagery in Novices and Active High JumpersMotor imagery can be defined as mental execution of an action without any muscular movement [1]. Between 70 to 90 % of elite athletes report that they use imagery with the intention of enhancing their physical performance [2], and controlled studies have shown that imagery leads to increased performance on motor tasks (for overview see [3,4]).One explanation for why motor imagery can enhance actual motor performance is that motor imagery and motor action engage overlapping brain systems [5,6]. Components that are critical for motor functions include the primary motor cortex (M1), the pre-motor cortex (PM), and the supplementary motor area (SMA). These regions are also found active in studies comparing motor imagery and motor performance, however, the results vary. Some studies show that there are equal activations in SMA and pre-motor cortex during imagery and physical performance [7,8]. In other studies SMA and pre-motor cortex are both activated during imagery as well as execution, but during imagery the extent of the activation is smaller [9][10][11][12]. Further, in some studies the regional extents are similar, but during imagery the activation is weaker than during physical performance [13][14][15][16].One factor that may account for the weaker and more variable activation patterns during motor imagery is the

Brain activation profiles during kinesthetic and visual imagery: An fMRI study

“…Yet, according to our results it seems that the imagery strategy is not the crucial factor for the involvement of M1 in motor imagery of a simple hand action suggesting that other factors such as those discussed in the introduction (the personal ability to form and retrieve mental representations, the requirements of the action or the expertise of the participants; Kuhtz-Buschbeck et al, 2003;Olsson et al, 2008;Lotze and Zentgraf, 2010) may determine involvement of M1. For example, it has been suggested that increasing experience in motor imagery induces changes to the activation patterns involving less motor areas and more areas implicated in abstract representations (Lotze and Halsband, 2006).…”

“…Moreover, whether kinesthetic or visual imagery is adopted depends on how well subjects may have already developed their internal motor representations (e.g. Olsson et al, 2008).…”

Complexity and familiarity enhance single-trial detectability of imagined movements with electroencephalography

“…Study 2, which included groups of experienced pianists, experienced ice hockey players, and age-matched controls, did not meet our expectations in that there was no advantage for any of the imagined actions for any group, regardless of their familiarity with the imagined actions (e.g., pianists imagining playing piano, etc.). Compared to novices, experienced athletes and musicians utilize fewer regions of the brain when imagining actions involving the sport or instrument with which both groups have familiarity (e.g., Lotze et al, 2003;Fourkas et al, 2008;Olsson et al, 2008;Wei & Luo, 2010). Although expert brain responses to familiar imagery are fairly consistent within and across individuals (e.g., Langheim et al, 2002), these responses did not result in an enhancement of the SMR in Study 2.…”

“…In this paper, we chose to explore the role of action familiarity in modulation of the SMR by drawing from samples of experienced athletes and musicians, given that the effects of long-term motor learning have been studied extensively in these groups already (see Münte et al, 2002, andNakata et al, 2010, for reviews). While imagining actions involving the sport or instrument of their expertise, experienced athletes and musicians produce more focused patterns of brain activation (e.g., Lotze et al, 2003;Milton et al, 2007;Olsson et al, 2008;Wei & Luo, 2010) and report more objectively accurate imagery than novices (e.g., Louis et al, 2012; see also Rieger, 2012). Based on the latter findings, it was expected that familiar imagery would result in a more reliable SMR, and thus higher classification accuracy, than traditional SMRbased BCI imagery.…”

“…In Study 2 (Familiarity), groups of experienced pianists, experienced ice hockey players, and age-matched controls were instructed to imagine completing hand squeezes and actions from hockey and piano. It was predicted that classification accuracy between rest and imagery would be highest for the athletes and musicians in the action with which they were most familiar (i.e., pianists imagining playing the piano, and hockey players imagining playing hockey; see Lotze et al, 2003;Fourkas et al, 2008;Olsson et al, 2008;Wei & Luo, 2010). In Study 3 (Complexity and Familiarity), the experienced pianists from Study 2 imagined playing one simple piece of music and one relatively more complex piece of music on the piano.…”