Top

Gepubliceerd in:

04-05-2020 | Original Article

Inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery: disentangling different forms of inhibition using action mode switching

Auteurs: Victoria K. E. Bart, Iring Koch, Martina Rieger

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2021

Abstract

In motor imagery, probably several inhibitory mechanisms prevent actual movements: global inhibition, effector-specific inhibition, and inhibition retrieved during target processing. We investigated factors that may influence those mechanisms. In an action mode switching paradigm, participants imagined and executed movements from home buttons to target buttons. We analysed sequential effects. Activation (due to execution) or inhibition (due to imagination) in the previous trial should affect performance in the subsequent trial, enabling conclusions about inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery. In Experiment 1, evidence for global and effector-specific inhibition was observed. Evidence for inhibition retrieved during target processing was inconclusive. Data patterns were similar when start and end of the imagined movements were indicated with an effector that was part of the imagined movement (hand) and with a different effector (feet). In Experiment 2, we ruled out that the use of biological stimuli (left/right hands in Experiment 1) to indicate the effector causes sequential effects attributed to effector-specific inhibition, by using uppercase letters (R, L). As in Experiment 1, evidence for effector-specific inhibition was observed. In conclusion, we could reliably disentangle several inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery.

vorige artikel The role of mental imagery in pantomimes of actions towards and away from the body

volgende artikel Bilinguals’ inhibitory control and attentional processes in a visual perceptual task

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

In execution trials of the foot group we have data from the release and press of the foot buttons and from the release and press of the home buttons. We compared the data from foot buttons and home buttons for RTs and MTs. No significant differences between the data from foot buttons and home buttons were observed. In imagination trials of the foot group the home buttons were not released. Thus, we used the data from foot buttons to calculate RTs and MTs in all conditions to ensure comparability between imagination and execution.

Adam, J. J., & Koch, I. (2014). Response-repetition effects depend on motor set: Evidence for anatomical coding in response selection. Human Movement Science, 33, 172–184.PubMedCrossRef

Alkadhi, H., Brugger, P., Boendermaker, S. H., Crelier, G., Curt, A., Hepp-Reymond, M. C., et al. (2005). What disconnection tells about motor imagery: Evidence from paraplegic patients. Cerebral Cortex, 15(2), 131–140.PubMedCrossRef

Aron, A. R., & Verbruggen, F. (2008). Stop the presses: Dissociating a selective from a global mechanism for stopping. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1146–1153.PubMedCrossRef

Bertelson, P. (1965). Serial choice reaction-time as a function of response versus signal-and-response repetition. Nature, 206, 217–218.PubMedCrossRef

Berthoz, A. (1996). The role of inhibition in the hierarchical gating of executed and imagined movements. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 101–113.PubMedCrossRef

Boisgontier, M. P., Wittenberg, G. F., Fujiyama, H., Levin, O., & Swinnen, S. P. (2014). Complexity of central processing in simple and choice multilimb reaction-time tasks. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e90457.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., & Prinz, W. (2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44(2), 124–143.PubMedCrossRef

Brunamonti, E., Ferraina, S., & Paré, M. (2012). Controlled movement processing: Evidence for a common inhibitory control of finger, wrist, and arm movements. Neuroscience, 215, 69–78.PubMedCrossRef

Chan, A. H., & Chan, K. W. (2010). Three-dimensional spatial stimulus–response (S–R) compatibility for visual signals with hand and foot controls. Applied Ergonomics, 41(6), 840–848.PubMedCrossRef

Coxon, J. P., Stinear, C. M., & Byblow, W. D. (2007). Selective inhibition of movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97(3), 2480–2489.PubMedCrossRef

Dahm, S. F., & Rieger, M. (2016a). Is there symmetry in motor imagery? Exploring different versions of the mental chronometry paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(6), 1794–1805.CrossRef

Dahm, S. F., & Rieger, M. (2016b). Cognitive constraints on motor imagery. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80(2), 235–247.PubMedCrossRef

De Jong, R., Coles, M. G., Logan, G. D., & Gratton, G. (1990). In search of the point of no return: the control of response processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(1), 164–182.PubMed

Decety, J., & Grèzes, J. (1999). Neural mechanisms subserving the perception of human actions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(5), 172–178.PubMedCrossRef

Decety, J., & Jeannerod, M. (1996). Mentally simulated movements in virtual reality: does Fitt's law hold in motor imagery? Behavioural Brain Research, 72(1), 127–134.

Decety, J., Jeannerod, M., & Prablanc, C. (1989). The timing of mentally represented actions. Behavioural Brain Research, 34(1–2), 35–42.PubMedCrossRef

Decety, J., & Michel, F. (1989). Comparative analysis of actual and mental movement times in two graphic tasks. Brain and Cognition, 11(1), 87–97.PubMedCrossRef

Di Rienzo, F., Collet, C., Hoyek, N., & Guillot, A. (2012). Selective effect of physical fatigue on motor imagery accuracy. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e47207.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

Georgopoulos, A. P. (2000). Neural aspects of cognitive motor control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 10(2), 238–241.PubMedCrossRef

Glover, S., & Baran, M. (2017). The motor-cognitive model of motor imagery: Evidence from timing errors in simulated reaching and grasping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(7), 1359–1375.PubMed

Greenhouse, I., Oldenkamp, C. L., & Aron, A. R. (2011). Stopping a response has global or nonglobal effects on the motor system depending on preparation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 107(1), 384–392.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Guillot, A., & Collet, C. (2005). Duration of mentally simulated movement: A review. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37(1), 10–20.PubMedCrossRef

Guillot, A., Debarnot, U., Louis, M., Hoyek, N., & Collet, C. (2010). Motor imagery and mo- tor performance: evidence from the sport science literature. In A. Guillot & C. Collet (Eds.), The Neurophysiological Foundations of Mental and Motor Imagery (pp. 215–226). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Guillot, A., Di Rienzo, F., MacIntyre, T., Moran, A., & Collet, C. (2012). Imagining is not doing but involves specific motor commands: a review of experimental data related to motor inhibition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 247.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

Guillot, A., Hoyek, N., Louis, M., & Collet, C. (2012). Understanding the timing of motor imagery: Recent findings and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(1), 3–22.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRef

Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2008). Priming, response learning and repetition suppression. Neuropsychologia, 46(7), 1979–1991.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Jeannerod, M. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 187–245.CrossRef

Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage, 14, 103–109.CrossRef

Kasess, C. H., Windischberger, C., Cunnington, R., Lanzenberger, R., Pezawas, L., & Moser, E. (2008). The suppressive influence of SMA on M1 in motor imagery revealed by fMRI and dynamic causal modeling. NeuroImage, 40(2), 828–837.PubMedCrossRef

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874.CrossRefPubMed

Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103(3), 295–310.PubMedCrossRef

Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 557–583.PubMedCrossRef

Kornblum, S., & Lee, J. W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 855–875.PubMed

Kraeutner, S., Gionfriddo, A., Bardouille, T., & Boe, S. (2014). Motor imagery-based brain activity parallels that of motor execution: Evidence from magnetic source imaging of cortical oscillations. Brain Research, 1588, 81–91.PubMedCrossRef

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

Leeb, R., Keinrath, C., Friedman, D., Guger, C., Scherer, R., Neuper, C., et al. (2006). Walking by thinking: the brainwaves are crucial, not the muscles. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15(5), 500–514.CrossRef

Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 1–35.CrossRef

Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94(2), 145–188.CrossRef

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.CrossRefPubMed

Munzert, J. (2008). Does level of expertise influence imagined durations in open skills? Played versus imagined durations of badminton sequences. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 24–38.CrossRef

O’Shea, H., & Moran, A. (2017). Does motor simulation theory explain the cognitive mechanisms underlying motor imagery? A critical review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

O’Shea, H., & Moran, A. (2018). To go or not to go? Pupillometry elucidates inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 466–483.CrossRef

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113.PubMedCrossRef

Papaxanthis, C., Pozzo, T., Skoura, X., & Schieppati, M. (2002). Does order and timing in performance of imagined and actual movements affect the motor imagery process? The duration of walking and writing task. Behavioural Brain Research, 134(1–2), 209–215.PubMedCrossRef

Porro, C. A., Francescato, M. P., Cettolo, V., Diamond, M. E., Baraldi, P., Zuiani, C., et al. (1996). Primary motor and sensory cortex activation during motor performance and motor imagery: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Neuroscience, 16(23), 7688–7698.PubMedCrossRef

Rieger, M., Dahm, S. F., & Koch, I. (2017). Inhibition in motor imagery: A novel action mode switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 459–466.CrossRef

Rieger, M., & Gauggel, S. (1999). Inhibitory after-effects in the stop signal paradigm. British Journal of Psychology, 90(4), 509–518.CrossRef

Rieger, M., & Massen, C. (2014). Tool characteristics in imagery of tool actions. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78(1), 10–17.PubMedCrossRef

Roland, P. E. (1984). Organization of motor control by the normal human brain. Human Neurobiology, 2(4), 205–216.PubMed

Scheil, J., & Liefooghe, B. (2018). Motor command inhibition and the representation of response mode during motor imagery. Acta Psychologica, 186, 54–62.PubMedCrossRef

Schmidt, J. R., & Liefooghe, B. (2016). Feature integration and task switching: Diminished switch costs after controlling for stimulus, response, and cue repetitions. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0151188.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

Soetens, E., Boer, L. C., & Hueting, J. E. (1985). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 598–616.

Solodkin, A., Hlustik, P., Chen, E. E., & Small, S. L. (2004). Fine modulation in network activation during motor execution and motor imagery. Cerebral Cortex, 14(11), 1246–1255.PubMedCrossRef

Stoet, G., & Hommel, B. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1625–1640.

Swinnen, S. P., Serrien, D. J., Walter, C. B., & Philippaerts, R. (1995). The organization of patterns of multilimb coordination as revealed through reaction time measures. Experimental Brain Research, 104(1), 153–162.PubMedCrossRef

Thomas, P. K., Sears, T. A., & Gilliatt, R. W. (1959). The range of conduction velocity in normal motor nerve fibres to the small muscles of the hand and foot. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 22(3), 175–181.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Tipper, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 54(2), 321–343.CrossRef

Verbruggen, F., McAndrew, A., Weidemann, G., Stevens, T., & McLaren, I. P. (2016). Limits of executive control sequential effects in predictable environments. Psychological Science, 27(5), 748–757.PubMedCrossRef

Vervaeck, K. R., & Boer, L. C. (1980). Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: Subjective expectancy and automatic after-effect at short response-stimulus intervals. Acta Psychologica, 44(2), 175–190.CrossRef

Waldert, S., Preissl, H., Demandt, E., Braun, C., Birbaumer, N., Aertsen, A., et al. (2008). Hand movement direction decoded from MEG and EEG. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(4), 1000–1008.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery: disentangling different forms of inhibition using action mode switching
Auteurs: Victoria K. E. Bart
Iring Koch
Martina Rieger
Publicatiedatum: 04-05-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01327-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2021

The deceptive nature of associative word pairs: the effects of associative direction on judgments of learning

Non-symbolic representation is modulated by math anxiety and cognitive inhibition while symbolic representation not

People have modest, not good, insight into their face recognition ability: a comparison between self-report questionnaires

Effort avoidance is not simply error avoidance

Perceptual errors are related to shifts in generalization of conditioned responding

In Medio Stat Virtus: intermediate levels of mind wandering improve episodic memory encoding in a virtual environment