http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00028/full?
Daniel L. Eaves1,2*, Lauren Haythornthwaite2 and Stefan Vogt2*
1Sport and Exercise Science Section, School of Social Sciences and Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
2Department of Psychology, Fylde College, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
We have previously shown that passively observing a task-irrelevant rhythmical action can bias the cycle time of a subsequently executed rhythmical action. Here we use the same paradigm to investigate the impact of different forms of motor imagery (MI) during action observation (AO) on this automatic imitation (AI) effect. Participants saw a picture of the instructed action followed by a rhythmical distractor movie, wherein cycle time was subtly manipulated across trials. They then executed the instructed rhythmical action. When participants imagined performing the instructed action in synchrony with the distractor action (AO + MI), a strong imitation bias was found that was significantly greater than in our previous study. The bias was pronounced equally for compatible and incompatible trials, wherein observed and imagined actions were different in type (e.g., face washing vs. painting) or plane of movement, or both. In contrast, no imitation bias was observed when MI conflicted with AO. In Experiment 2, motor execution synchronized with AO produced a stronger imitation bias compared to AO + MI, showing an advantage in synchronization for overt execution over MI. Furthermore, the bias was stronger when participants synchronized the instructed action with the distractor movie, compared to when they synchronized the distractor action with the distractor movie. Although we still observed a significant bias in the latter condition, this finding indicates a degree of specificity in AI effects for the identity of the synchronized action. Overall, our data show that MI can substantially modulate the effects of AO on subsequent execution, wherein: (1) combined AO + MI can enhance AI effects relative to passive AO; (2) observed and imagined actions can be flexibly coordinated across different action types and planes; and (3) conflicting AO + MI can abolish AI effects. Therefore, combined AO + MI instructions should be considered in motor training and rehabilitation.
- See more at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00028/full?#sthash.vULEQsVf.dpuf
- 1Sport and Exercise Science Section, School of Social Sciences and Law, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
- 2Department of Psychology, Fylde College, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
- See more at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00028/full?#sthash.vULEQsVf.dpuf
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteI just found your interesting website... I am the lead author of the article above (DE) and would be very happy to have discussions about our findings with readers. Essentially we ran this study with healthy participants and so I would be very interested to hear perspectives from stroke patients/survivors and practitioners on the possible use of our instruction.
Hope to hear from you soon - all comments welcome!
Dan