What we imagine learning from watching others: how motor imagery modulates competency perceptions resulting from the repeated observation of a juggling action.

Although motor learning can occur from observing others perform a motor skill (action observation; AO), observers' confidence in their own ability to perform the skill can be falsely increased compared to their actual ability. This illusion of motor competence (i.e., 'over-confidence') may arise because the learner does not gain access to sensory feedback about their own performance-a source of information that can help individuals understand their veridical motor capabilities. Unlike AO, motor imagery (MI; the mental rehearsal of a motor skill) is thought to be linked to an understanding of movement consequences and kinaesthetic information. MI may thus provide the learner with movement-related diagnostic information, leading to greater accuracy in assessing ability. The present study was designed to evaluate the effects of MI when paired with AO in assessments of one's own motor capabilities in an online observation task. Two groups rated their confidence in performing a juggling task following repeated observations of the action without MI (OBS group; n = 45) or with MI following observation (OBS+MI; n = 39). As predicted, confidence increased with repeated observation for both groups, yet increased to a greater extent in the OBS relative to the OBS+MI group. The addition of MI appeared to reduce confidence that resulted from repeated AO alone. Data support the hypothesis that AO and MI are separable and that MI allows better access to sensory information than AO. However, further research is required to assess changes in confidence that result from MI alone and motor execution.

When unintended movements "leak" out: a startling acoustic stimulus can elicit a prepared response during motor imagery and action observation.

Covert forms of practice, such as observation and imagery, have been shown to involve neurophysiological activation of the motor system, and a functional equivalence between covert and overt processes involved in action execution has been proposed (Jeannerod, 2001). We used a startling acoustic stimulus (SAS), which has been shown to trigger prepared movements involuntarily at short latencies via an increase in cortical activation, to probe the similarity of these processes and elicit movement responses in imagery and observation trials. Startle trials were interspersed with control trials while participants (n=16) performed or imagined a right hand key lift or observed a model perform the key lift. During physical movement trials, intended movements were triggered by the SAS at a short latency (RT=78 ms) in comparison to control trials (RT=110 ms). During imagery and observation, unimanual partial movements (assessed by force change and muscle activation) were elicited by the SAS, providing novel behavioural evidence for a functional similarity between covert and overt movement preparation processes. Examination of the magnitude of the reflexive startle response (an index of motor preparation) during imagery and observation also revealed similarities to physical movement trials. We conclude that covert and overt movements involve similarities in motor preparation and neural pathways, and propose that movements do not normally occur during imagery and observation due to low level neural activation.

Motor preparation of spatially and temporally defined movements: evidence from startle.

Previous research has shown that the preparation of a spatially targeted movement performed at maximal speed is different from that of a temporally constrained movement (Gottlieb et al. 1989b). In the current study, we directly examined preparation differences in temporally vs. spatially defined movements through the use of a startling stimulus and manipulation of the task goals. Participants performed arm extension movements to one of three spatial targets (20°, 40°, 60°) and an arm extension movement of 20° at three movement speeds (slow, moderate, fast). All movements were performed in a blocked, simple reaction time paradigm, with trials involving a startling stimulus (124 dB) interspersed randomly with control trials. As predicted, spatial movements were modulated by agonist duration and timed movements were modulated by agonist rise time. The startling stimulus triggered all movements at short latencies with a compression of the kinematic and electromyogram (EMG) profile such that they were performed faster than control trials. However, temporally constrained movements showed a differential effect of movement compression on startle trials such that the slowest movement showed the greatest temporal compression. The startling stimulus also decreased the relative timing between EMG bursts more for the 20° movement when it was defined by a temporal rather than spatial goal, which we attributed to the disruption of an internal timekeeper for the timed movements. These results confirm that temporally defined movements were prepared in a different manner from spatially defined movements and provide new information pertaining to these preparation differences.