The role of motor imagery in learning via instructions

Abstract

Learning via instructions and learning through physical practice are complementary pathways to obtain skilled performance. Whereas an initial task representation can be formed on the basis of instructions, physically practicing novel instructions leads to a shift in processing mode from controlled processing toward more automatic processing. This shift in processing mode is supposedly caused by the formation of a pragmatic task representation, which includes task parameters needed to attain skilled task execution. In between learning via instructions and physical practice, a third type of learning can be situated, motor imagery. Two experiments are reported that studied the extent to which motor imagery can enhance the application of novel instructions. A procedure was developed in which performance improvement after motor imagery could be measured for behavioral markers of processes underlying response selection (i.e., initiation time of a response sequence) and for behavioral markers of processes underlying movement execution (i.e., completion time of the response sequence). Our results suggest that whereas physical practice improves response selection and movement execution, motor imagery only improves response selection. We propose that motor imagery also leads to a shift in processing mode and to the formation of a pragmatic task representation, albeit a less detailed one as compared to the representation that is formed on the basis of physical practice.

Automatic effects of covert practice

“…The rationale of this manipulation is that covering a longer physical distance should also increase the time need to imagine making that response (e.g., Decety et al, 1989). In line with Theeuwes et al (2018), we observed a longer time estimation when a larger physical distance needed to be covered. However, although this effect did not differ significantly between covert and overt responding, additional analyses indicated that this distance effect was mainly driven by the overt-practice condition.…”

“…Logan (1988) assumes that automatic behaviour is attained when task performance is completely determined by episodic retrieval and no longer based on the controlled processing route (see also Logan, 1992Logan, , 2002Schmidt et al, 2016). Theeuwes et al (2018) reported experimental evidence suggesting that covert practice may also lead to the storage of processing episodes. These authors measured the beneficial effect of overtly or covertly practicing new instructions, which related a stimulus (e.g., "rabbit") to a sequence of three responses (e.g., pressing the letter-keys "s," "p," "r").…”

“…For instance, Decety et al (1989) observed that increasing the length of a particular walking distance increases not only the actual walking time but also the imagined walking time, which offers an indication that kinesthetic information is included during the imagery experience. Accordingly, we manipulated the physical distance participants had to move their response hand and measured whether this affected the time to imagine responding to a stimulus (see Theeuwes et al, 2018, for a similar approach). Our prediction was that if kinesthetic information is represented during covert practice, which points towards the involvement of motor imagery, then this estimated time should be longer when the response requires to cover a larger physical distance.…”

Motor Imagery Practice and Cognitive Processes

“…Unfortunately, these guidelines do not address the processes by which participants create a mental representation of the instructions provided in imagery scripts. However, some insights into this latter issue come indirectly from a recent study by Theeuwes et al (2018). Briefly, these authors developed a paradigm to study how MI affects the selection and retrieval of a novel response sequence.…”

An Episodic Model of Task Switching Effects: Erasing the Homunculus from Memory

“…In the new version of the PEP model, we conceptualize such configuration by appealing to simple episodic storage and retrieval processes. Instead of hardwiring instructions, as was done in the previous version of the PEP model, the new PEP version encodes memory traces of the instructed mappings (i.e., decision-to-key mappings and cue-to-task mappings), as a participant will do via, for instance, memory rehearsal or mental imagery ( Ruge & Wolfensteller, 2010 ; see also, Jeannerod, 2001 ; Jeannerod & Frak, 1999 ; O’Shea & Moran, 2017 ; Theeuwes, Liefooghe, De Schryver, & De Houwer, 2018 ). This allows for automatic retrieval during subsequent execution of the task ( Brass, Liefooghe, Braem, & De Houwer, 2017 ; Martiny-Huenger, Martiny, Parks-Stamm, Pfeiffer, & Gollwitzer, 2017 ).…”