Guidelines for reporting action simulation studies (GRASS): Proposals to improve reporting of research in motor imagery and action observation.

Researchers from multiple disciplines have studied the simulation of actions through motor imagery, action observation, or their combination. Procedures used in these studies vary considerably between research groups, and no standardized approach to reporting experimental protocols has been proposed. This has led to under-reporting of critical details, impairing the assessment, replication, synthesis, and potential clinical translation of effects. We provide an overview of issues related to the reporting of information in action simulation studies, and discuss the benefits of standardized reporting. We propose a series of checklists that identify key details of research protocols to include when reporting action simulation studies. Each checklist comprises A) essential methodological details, B) essential details that are relevant to a specific mode of action simulation, and C) further points that may be useful on a case-by-case basis. We anticipate that the use of these guidelines will improve the understanding, reproduction, and synthesis of studies using action simulation, and enhance the translation of research using motor imagery and action observation to applied and clinical settings.

Consistent under-reporting of task details in motor imagery research.

Motor Imagery is a subject of longstanding scientific interest. However, critical details of motor imagery protocols are not always reported in full, hampering direct replication and translation of this work. The present review provides a quantitative assessment of the prevalence of under-reporting in the recent motor imagery literature. Publications from the years 2018-2020 were examined, with 695 meeting the inclusion criteria for further examination. Of these studies, 64% (445/695) did not provide information about the modality of motor imagery (i.e., kinesthetic, visual, or a mixture of both) used in the study. When visual or mixed imagery was specified, the details of the visual perspective to be used (i.e., first person, third person, or combinations of both) were not reported in 24% (25/103) of studies. Further analysis indicated that studies using questionnaires to assess motor imagery reported more information than those that did not. We conclude that studies using motor imagery consistently under-report key details of their protocols, which poses a significant problem for understanding, replicating, and translating motor imagery effects.

Neural correlates of action: Comparing meta-analyses of imagery, observation, and execution.

Several models propose Motor Imagery, Action Observation, and Movement Execution recruit the same brain regions. There is, however, no quantitative synthesis of the literature that directly compares their respective networks. Here we summarized data from neuroimaging experiments examining Motor Imagery (303 experiments, 4902 participants), Action Observation (595 experiments, 11,032 participants), and related control tasks involving Movement Execution (142 experiments, 2302 participants). Comparisons across these networks showed that Motor Imagery and Action Observation recruited similar premotor-parietal cortical networks. However, while Motor Imagery recruited a similar subcortical network to Movement Execution, Action Observation did not consistently recruit any subcortical areas. These data quantify and amend previous models of the similarities in the networks for Motor Imagery, Action Observation, and Movement Execution, while highlighting key differences in their recruitment of motor cortex, parietal cortex, and subcortical structures.

Cerebellar direct current stimulation enhances motor learning in older adults.

Developing novel approaches to combat age related declines in motor function is key to maintaining health and function in older adults, a subgroup of the population that is rapidly growing. Motor adaptation, a form of motor learning, has been shown to be impaired in healthy older subjects compared with their younger counterparts. Here, we tested whether excitatory anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the cerebellum could enhance adaptation in older subjects. Participants performed a "center-out" reaching task, adapting to the sudden introduction of a visual cursor rotation. Older participants receiving sham tDCS (mean age 56.3 ± 6.8 years) were slower to adapt than younger participants (mean age 20.7 ± 2.1 years). In contrast, older participants who received anodal tDCS (mean age 59.6 ± 8.1 years) adapted faster, with a rate that was similar to younger subjects. We conclude that cerebellar anodal tDCS enhances motor adaptation in older individuals. Our results highlight the efficacy of the novel approach of using cerebellar tDCS to combat age related deficits in motor learning.