The effect of action observation and motor imagery combinations on upper limb kinematics and EMG during dart‐throwing

Abstract

Recent research has begun to employ interventions that combine action observation and motor imagery (AOMI) with positive results. However, little is known about the underpinning facilitative effect on performance. Participants (n = 50) were randomly allocated to one of five training groups: action observation (AO), motor imagery (MI), simultaneous action observation and motor imagery (S‐AOMI), alternate action observation and motor imagery (A‐AOMI), and control. The task involved dart‐throwing at a concentric circle dartboard at pre‐ and post‐test. Interventions were conducted 3 times per week for 6 weeks. Data were collected from performance outcomes and mean muscle activation of the upper and forearm muscles. Angular velocity and peak angular velocity measurements of the elbow were also collected from the throwing arm. Results showed performance of the A‐AOMI group improved to a significantly greater degree than the AO (P = .04), MI (P = .04), and control group (P = .02), and the S‐AOMI group improved to a greater degree than the control group (P = .02). Mean muscle activation of the triceps brachii significantly reduced in the S‐AOMI and A‐AOMI (P < .01) groups, and participants in the AO (P = .04), A‐AOMI, and S‐AOMI (P < .01) groups significantly reduced activation in the bicep brachii from pre‐ to post‐test. Peak angular velocity significantly decreased from pre‐ to post‐test in both A‐AOMI and S‐AOMI (P < .01) groups. The results reaffirm the benefits of AOMI for facilitating skill learning and provide an insight how these interventions produce favorable changes in EMG and movement kinematics.

A neural signature for combined action observation and motor imagery? An fNIRS study into prefrontal activation, automatic imitation, and self–other perceptions

“…Despite this early integrative account, these two forms of motor simulation have traditionally been studied either in isolation from each other or compared in terms of their impact on motor skills (e.g., Gatti et al., 2013 ; see Vogt et al., 2013 ). More recently, a growing body of research demonstrates the advantages of instructing combined action observation and motor imagery (AO+MI) instructions on motor learning (Marshall, Wright, Holmes, & Wood, 2020 ; Romano‐Smith et al., 2019 , 2018 ) and neurophysiological activity when undertaking AO+MI (Macuga & Frey, 2012 ; Villiger et al., 2013 ). Combined AO+MI typically involves participants imagining the kinesthetic experience and sensations of an action, while at the same time also observing a visual display of the same action (Eaves, Riach, et al., 2016 ).…”

Leveraging the effector independent nature of motor imagery when it is paired with physical practice

“…In contrast to investigations over short timescales (e.g., single session studies), studies examining parameters of motor imagery-based skill acquisition over periods > 1 week (e.g., multi-session studies) are notably absent. In addition to the paucity of studies examining neural and/or behavioural outcomes associated with motor imagery relative to physical practice over multiple sessions (see [19][20][21] for examples), no studies have examined the effect of order when motor imagery is combined with physical practice. Critically, the absence of investigations that evaluate the evolution of both forms of encoding over multiple sessions limits our understanding of how the effector independent nature of motor imagery manifests in both behaviour and brain function, and how motor imagery can be leveraged when applied to learning over periods > 1 week.…”

Neural and Behavioral Outcomes Differ Following Equivalent Bouts of Motor Imagery or Physical Practice

“…Furthermore, that we did not observe statistically significant changes in core motor regions in our withingroup analyses is likely due in part to our participants performing MI in the scanner and that these increases may only occur after longer term practice, as shown in Bar and DeSouza (2016). Although the associated lack of changes in brain activation driven by 5 days of training via MI is supported by performance outcomes, robust learning did not occur in the MI group-it may well be that a proportionately larger amount of MI-based training (similar to Romano-Smith et al, 2019) would result in performance improvements and coincident changes in brain activation patterns akin to those driven by PP. Furthermore, it is important to note that we captured kinematic outcomes in 2-D; thus, future work should consider employing more sensitive kinematic outcomes (i.e., in 3-D) when pursuing this unexplored area of research.…”

“…Similarly, Pascual-Leone and colleagues had participants in their mental practice group physically perform 20 repetitions of the sequence to be learned at the end of each practice session, limiting the degree to which the improved performance and expansion of the task-related regions in primary motor cortex can be attributed solely to mental practice (Pascual-Leone et al, 1995). In contrast, in studies whereby physical exposure to the complex motor skill is limited (see Frank, Land, Popp, &Schack, 2014, andRomano-Smith, Wood, Coyles, Roberts, &Wakefield, 2019, for examples), improvements in performance because of MI were observed only after a high (i.e., 18 sessions across 6 weeks; Romano-Smith et al, 2019) versus low (Ingram et al, 2019;Frank et al, 2014) dose of practice, indicating that the marginal alterations to the motor program induced by MI may not translate to behavioral effects after five practice sessions, as in the current study.…”