Implicit visuospatial sequence representations are accessible in both the practice and the transfer hand.

A serial reaction time task was used to test whether the representations of a probabilistic second-order sequence structure are (i) stored in an effector-dependent, effector-independent intrinsic or effector-independent visuospatial code and (ii) are inter-manually accessible. Participants were trained either with the dominant or non-dominant hand. Tests were performed with both hands in the practice sequence, a random sequence, and a mirror sequence. Learning did not differ significantly between left and right-hand practice, suggesting symmetric intermanual transfer from the dominant to the non-dominant hand and vice versa. In the posttest, RTs were shorter for the practice sequence than for the random sequence, and longest for the mirror sequence. Participants were unable to freely generate or recognize the practice sequence, indicating implicit knowledge of the probabilistic sequence structure. Because sequence-specific learning did not differ significantly between hands, we conclude that representations of the probabilistic sequence structure are stored in an effector-independent visuospatial code.

Kinesthetic vs. visual focus: No evidence for effects of practice modality in representation types after action imagery practice and action execution practice.

Action-imagery practice (AIP) is assumed to result in partly different action representations than action-execution practice (AEP). The present study investigated whether focusing on either kinesthetic or visual aspects of a task during practice amplifies or diminishes such differences between AIP and AEP. In ten sessions, four groups, using either AIP or AEP with either kinesthetic or visual focus, practiced a twelve-element sequence in a unimanual serial reaction time task. Tests involved the practice sequence, a mirror sequence, and a different sequence, each performed with the practice and transfer hand. In AIP and AEP, in both hands, reaction times (RTs) were shorter in the practice sequence than in the different sequence, indicating effector-independent visual-spatial sequence representations. Further, RTs were shorter in the practice hand than in the transfer hand in the practice sequence (but not in the different sequence), indicating effector-dependent representations in AEP and AIP. Although the representation types did not differ, learning effects were stronger in AEP than in AIP. Thus, although to a lower extent than in AEP, effector-dependent representations can be acquired using AIP. Contrary to the expectations, the focus manipulation did not have an impact on the acquired representation types. Hence, modality instructions in AIP may not have such a strong impact as commonly assumed, at least in implicit sequence learning.

Meaning in hand: Investigating shared mechanisms of motor imagery and sensorimotor simulation in language processing.

There is substantial evidence to support grounded theories of semantic representation, however the mechanisms of simulation in most theories are underspecified. In the present study, we used an individual differences approach to test whether motor imagery may share some mechanisms with sensorimotor simulations engaged during semantic processing. We quantified individual differences in motor imagery ability via implicit imagery tasks and explicit imagery questionnaires and tested their relationship to sensorimotor effects in syntactic classification tasks. In Experiment 1 (N = 185) we tested relationships between motor imagery and semantic processing of body-object interaction meaning (BOI; the degree to which you can interact with a word's referent) and foot/leg action meaning. We observed two interactions between imagery ability measured on the Florida Praxis Imagery Questionnaire (FPIQ) and BOI effects in semantic processing (response time and accuracy). In both interactions poorer imagery ability was associated with null BOI effects, whereas better imagery was associated with BOI effects. We also observed faster and more accurate responses to verbs associated with more foot/leg action meaning than verbs with less foot/leg action meaning, but this foot/leg action effect did not significantly interact with individual differences in motor imagery. In Experiment 2 (N = 195) we tested whether the interactions observed in Experiment 1 were dependent on the object-directed nature of the actions, or whether similar effects would be observed for hand actions not associated with objects. We also expanded our investigation beyond hand and foot imagery to consider whole body imagery. We observed an interaction between performance on a hand laterality judgement task (HLJT; assessing hand motor imagery) and sensorimotor effects in semantic processing of verbs associated with hand/arm action meaning. Participants with the fastest responses on the most difficult trials of the HLJT showed no significant difference in their response times to words with high and low hand/arm action meaning. We also observed faster and more accurate responses to high relative to low embodiment verbs, but this sensorimotor effect did not interact with individual differences in motor imagery. The results suggest specific (and not general) associations, in that some, but not all forms of hand and object-directed motor imagery are related to sensorimotor effects in language processing of hand/arm action verbs and nouns describing objects that are easy to interact with. As such, hand and object-directed motor imagery may share mechanisms with sensorimotor simulation during semantic processing.

Imagine to automatize: automatization of stimulus-response coupling after action imagery practice in implicit sequence learning.

Action imagery practice (AIP) describes the repetitive imagination of an action to improve subsequent action execution. Because AIP and action execution practice (AEP) draw on partly similar motor mechanisms, it was assumed that AIP may lead to motor automatization, which is observable in a reduction of dual-task costs after AEP. To investigate automatization in AIP, we compared dual-task and single-task performance in practice and random sequences in pretests and posttests. All participants practiced serial reactions to visual stimuli in ten single-task practice sessions. An AIP group imagined the reactions. An AEP group and a control practice group executed the reactions. Practice followed a sequential sequence in AIP and AEP but was random in control practice. In dual-task test conditions, tones were counted that appeared in addition to the visual stimuli. RTs decreased from pretest to posttest in both practice and random sequences in all groups indicating general sequence-unspecific learning. Further, RTs decreased to a greater extent in the practice sequence than in the random sequence after AIP and AEP, indicating sequence-specific learning. Dual-task costs-the difference between RTs after tone and no tone events-were reduced independent from the performed sequence in all groups indicating sequence-unspecific automatization. It is concluded that the stimulus-response coupling can be automatized by both, AEP and AIP.

A theoretical perspective on action consequences in action imagery: internal prediction as an essential mechanism to detect errors.

Acting in the environment results in both intended and unintended consequences. Action consequences provide feedback about the adequacy of actions while they are in progress and when they are completed and therefore contribute to monitoring actions, facilitate error detection, and are crucial for motor learning. In action imagery, no actual action takes place, and consequently, no actual action consequences are produced. However, imagined action consequences may replace actual action consequences, serving a similar function and facilitating performance improvements akin to that occurring with actual actions. In this paper, we conceptualize action imagery as a simulation based on internal models. During that simulation, forward models predict action consequences. A comparison of predicted and intended action consequences sometimes indicates the occurrence of action errors (or deviations from optimal performance) in action imagery. We review research indicating that action errors are indeed sometimes imagined in action imagery. These results are compatible with the view that action imagery is based on motor simulation but incompatible with the view that action imagery is solely based on abstract knowledge. The outlined framework seems suitable to cover a wide range of action imagery phenomena and can explain action imagery practice effects.

Time course of learning sequence representations in action imagery practice.

Action imagery practice (AIP) is effective to improve motor performance in a variety of tasks, though it is often less effective than action execution practice (AEP). In sequence learning, AIP and AEP result in the acquisition of effector-independent representations. However, it is unresolved whether effector-dependent representations can be acquired in AIP. In the present study, we investigated the acquisition of effector-independent representations and effector-dependent representations in AEP and AIP in an implicit sequence learning task (a visual serial-reaction-time task, involving a twelve-element sequence). Participants performed six sessions, each starting with tests. A practice sequence, a mirror sequence, and a different sequence were tested with the practice and transfer hand. In the first four sessions, after the tests, two groups performed either AIP (N = 50) or AEP (N = 54). Improvement in the different sequence indicated sequence-unspecific learning in both AEP and AIP. Importantly, reaction times of the practice hand became shorter in the practice sequence than in the other sequences, indicating implicit sequence learning in both, AEP and AIP. This effect was stronger in the practice hand than in the transfer hand, indicating effector-dependent sequence representations in both AEP and AIP. However, effector-dependent sequence representations were stronger in AEP than in AIP. No significant differences between groups were observed in the transfer hand, although effector-independent sequence representations were observed in AEP only. In conclusion, AIP promotes not only sequence-unspecific stimulus-response coupling and anticipations of the subsequent stimuli, but also anticipations of the subsequent responses.

Errors in Imagined and Executed Typing.

In motor imagery (MI), internal models may predict the action effects. A mismatch between predicted and intended action effects may result in error detection. To compare error detection in MI and motor execution (ME), ten-finger typists and hunt-and-peck typists performed a copy-typing task. Visibility of the screen and visibility of the keyboard were manipulated. Participants reported what type of error occurred and by which sources they detected the error. With covered screen, fewer errors were reported, showing the importance of distal action effects for error detection. With covered screen, the number of reported higher-order planning errors did not significantly differ between MI and ME. However, the number of reported motor command errors was lower in MI than in ME. Hence, only errors that occur in advance to internal modeling are equally observed in MI and ME. MI may require more attention than ME, leaving fewer resources to monitor motor command errors in MI. In comparison to hunt-and-peck typists, ten-finger typists detected more higher-order planning errors by kinesthesis/touch and fewer motor command errors by vision of the keyboard. The use of sources for error detection did not significantly differ between MI and ME, indicating similar mechanisms.

Is imagery better than reality? Performance in imagined dart throwing.

We investigated whether deviations from optimal performance are predicted in motor imagery. In Experiment 1, novices and experts imagined and executed dart throws. In imagination, they reported the final position of the dart. Experts performed better than novices in execution and imagination. Distance to the target and bias were smaller in imagination than in execution. In Experiment 2, we dissociated the roles of feedback from proximal and distal action elements for predictions. Three groups of novices estimated the dart's final position in imagination, in execution without visual feedback, or in execution with delayed visual feedback. Estimates did not differ significantly between groups, indicating that (the lack of) feedback did not influence predictions. Deviations from optimal performance were lower in estimated than in actual performance. In conclusion, although predictive mechanisms may be similar in imagination and execution, the full extent of deviation from optimal performance is not predicted.

Deutsche Übersetzung und Validierung des VMIQ-2 zur Erfassung der Lebhaftigkeit von Handlungsvorstellungen.

The aim of the study was to validate a German version of the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire 2 (VMIQ-2; Roberts, Callow, Hardy, Markland, & Bringer, 2008), which measures external visual, internal visual, and kinesthetic vividness of movement imagery. The psychometric characteristics of the German version did not differ significantly from the English version. Using confirmatory factor analyses, the three-dimensional structure of the VMIQ-2 was replicated with reasonable fit and good internal consistency. The test-retest reliability was moderate. Thus, the German version of the VMIQ-2 is a valid instrument for measuring the vividness of movement imagery.

Inhibition in motor imagery: a novel action mode switching paradigm.

Motor imagery requires that actual movements are prevented (i.e., inhibited) from execution. To investigate at what level inhibition takes place in motor imagery, we developed a novel action mode switching paradigm. Participants imagined (indicating only start and end) and executed movements from start buttons to target buttons, and we analyzed trial sequence effects. Trial sequences depended on current action mode (imagination or execution), previous action mode (pure blocks/same mode, mixed blocks/same mode, or mixed blocks/other mode), and movement sequence (action repetition, hand repetition, or hand alternation). Results provided evidence for global inhibition (indicated by switch benefits in execution-imagination (E-I)-sequences in comparison to I-I-sequences), effector-specific inhibition (indicated by hand repetition costs after an imagination trial), and target inhibition (indicated by target repetition benefits in I-I-sequences). No evidence for subthreshold motor activation or action-specific inhibition (inhibition of the movement of an effector to a specific target) was obtained. Two (global inhibition and effector-specific inhibition) of the three observed mechanisms are active inhibition mechanisms. In conclusion, motor imagery is not simply a weaker form of execution, which often is implied in views focusing on similarities between imagination and execution.

Is there symmetry in motor imagery? Exploring different versions of the mental chronometry paradigm.

Motor imagery and motor execution share similar processes. However, only some factors that affect motor execution affect motor imagery in the same way. We investigated whether bimanual coordination constraints (parallel movements are performed slower than symmetric movements) are observed in motor imagery and whether the way of implementing the mental chronometry paradigm, which is used to investigate motor imagery, influences the results. Participants imagined and executed repetitive symmetric and parallel bimanual movements in three different tasks. Participants performed a certain number of movement repetitions (number task), repeated movements for a fixed duration (duration task), and performed movements in synchrony with pacing sounds (synchronization task). In both, imagination and execution, inter-response intervals were longer with parallel movements than with symmetric movements (number task and duration task), and the percentage of correct movements was lower with parallel than with symmetric movements (synchronization task). Performance of imagined and executed movements was correlated in all tasks. However, imagination took longer or was rated as less accurate than execution, and in the synchronization task the coordination constraint affected accuracy more in execution than in imagination. Thus, motor imagery and overt execution involve shared and unique processes. The synchronization task offers a promising alternative to investigate motor imagery, because the speed-accuracy trade-off is taken into account, different tempi can be used, and psychometric functions can be calculated.

Cognitive constraints on motor imagery.

Executed bimanual movements are prepared slower when moving to symbolically different than when moving to symbolically same targets and when targets are mapped to target locations in a left/right fashion than when they are mapped in an inner/outer fashion [Weigelt et al. (Psychol Res 71:238-447, 2007)]. We investigated whether these cognitive bimanual coordination constraints are observable in motor imagery. Participants performed fast bimanual reaching movements from start to target buttons. Symbolic target similarity and mapping were manipulated. Participants performed four action conditions: one execution and three imagination conditions. In the latter they indicated starting, ending, or starting and ending of the movement. We measured movement preparation (RT), movement execution (MT) and the combined duration of movement preparation and execution (RTMT). In all action conditions RTs and MTs were longer in movements towards different targets than in movements towards same targets. Further, RTMTs were longer when targets were mapped to target locations in a left/right fashion than when they were mapped in an inner/outer fashion, again in all action conditions. RTMTs in imagination and execution were similar, apart from the imagination condition in which participants indicated the start and the end of the movement. Here MTs, but not RTs, were longer than in the execution condition. In conclusion, cognitive coordination constraints are present in the motor imagery of fast (<1600 ms) bimanual movements. Further, alternations between inhibition and execution may prolong the duration of motor imagery.