The Effects of Combining PETTLEP Imagery and Action Observation on Bicep Strength: A Single-Case Design

Abstract

23The PETTLEP model of motor imagery (Holmes & Collins, 2001) has been shown 24 to be effective in enhancing strength performance. With recent literature discussing 25 the shared neural substrates between imagery and action observation, this study 26 investigated whether PETTLEP imagery would improve bicep strength both with 27 and without an additional observational aid. Using a single-case design, four 28 participants completed a baseline phase followed by PETTLEP imagery with and 29 without an observation aid in a counterbalanced manner. Weekly bicep curl 1 30 repetition maximum (1 R.M.) was used as the performance measure. Results 31 indicated that using an observational aid in conjunction with PETTLEP imagery 32 can aid performance, but not to a greater degree than PETTLEP imagery alone. This 33 indicates that observational aids may not be an essential addition to imagery 34 interventions, but their inclusion is not detrimental. The study highlights further the 35 benefit of using PETTLEP imagery for enhancing strength performance, which 36 should be considered by practitioners delivering resistance training programs. 37 Future research could further explore the role of observation when combined with 38 imagery to assess the effect on strength in an athletic population.39 40 41 42 43 3Motor imagery is the act of producing an internal representation of movement, typically 44 without generating any physical output (Mulder, 2007). Improvements in strength performance 45 following the use of motor imagery are well documented in the literature (see Slimani, Tod, 46 Chaabene, Miarka, & Charmari, 2016 for a review). For example, Yue and Cole (1992) found 47 that a four-week training program using either maximal isometric contractions or imagined 48 maximal isometric contractions produced strength gains of 29.8% and 22% respectively in the 49 abductor digiti minimi muscle. A more recent study (Wright & Smith, 2009) on a larger muscle 50 group (elbow flexors) also showed a strength gain of 23% through imagery training. 51Such findings are potentially of great value to those involved in strength training. 52However, the question of how to conduct imagery to produce optimal strength gains also needs 53 to be considered. The PETTLEP model (Holmes & Collins, 2001) has recently been used to 54 guide imagery interventions with strength tasks (for example, see Wakefield & Smith, 2011). 55This model was derived from a mix of cognitive psychology, sport psychology and 56 neuroscience research, the latter indicating that imagery produces activity in similar areas of 57 the brain to those active during movement execution. Consequently, the model proposed that a 58 'functional equivalence' exists between imagery and physical performance of a motor skill. 59PETTLEP is an acronym, with each letter standing for a practical consideration when designing 60 and constructing an imagery intervention. These are Physical, Environment, Task, Timing. 61

The Effects of Instruction Manipulation on Motor Performance Following Action Observation

“…Similar short-term improvements in maximal isometric strength output of elbow flexor muscles among healthy subjects were found during AO+At and AO+MI (Di Rienzo et al, 2019). Furthermore, the addition of MI to AO did not have a superiority effect compared to MI alone on bicep curl performance in a single case study design (Smith et al, 2019) and on postural sway following a 4-week balance training intervention in healthy subjects (Taube et al, 2014). On the other hand, an ''imitation bias'' was significantly stronger after healthy subjects had imagined synchronizing a rhythmical action with an observed distractor than after passively observing a rhythmical distractor action (i.e., the participants' movement responses were biased toward the speed of the previously observed distractor; Eaves et al, 2012Eaves et al, , 2014.…”

PETTLEP imagery and tennis service performance: an applied investigation

“…Finn et al (2009) conducted a study on football kicking on target three times a week for six weeks that highly influenced the performance. More recently, a few researchers in their study indicated that (e.g., Norouzi et al, 2019;Post et al, 2015;Smith et al, 2019) short duration of PETTLEP imagery training creatednote-worthy results in the performance. Further research must be done on a particular method to find how long-duration PETTLEP imagery training influences performance.…”

“…More recently, another study looked into the effects of PETTLEP imagery integrated with action observation on bicep curl performance. It turned out that observational aids combined with PETTLEP imagery effects on bicep curl performance (Smith, Romano-Smith, Wright, Deller-Rust, & Wakefield, 2019). Norouzi et al (2019) determined the effects of external and internal PETTLEP imagery on a football pass skill acquisition in contrast to a control condition for improving motor learning among novice players.…”

The Effect of Virtual Reality Technology on the Imagery Skills and Performance of Target-Based Sports Athletes

“…Virtual reality has the potential to include PETTLEP components in the imagery training. The inclusion of PETTLEP components such as physical, environment, task, time, learn, emotion, and perspective in the imagery training enhances the effect of imagery (Smith et al, 2008(Smith et al, , 2019Wright and Smith, 2009;Battaglia et al, 2014;Anuar et al, 2018). In the mechanism underlying the VRBI program, all the components in the PETTLEP model are included in the process to maximize the effect of imagery.…”