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.