Top

Gepubliceerd in:

25-03-2024 | Research

Theoretical explanations and the availability of information for learning via combined action observation and motor imagery: a commentary on Eaves et al. (2022)

Auteurs: Stephanie L. Romano Smith, James W. Roberts, Anthony J. Miller, Caroline J. Wakefield

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2024

Abstract

The recent review by Eaves et al. (Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 2022) outlines the research conducted to-date on combined action-observation and motor imagery (AOMI), and more specifically, its added benefit to learning. Of interest, these findings have been primarily attributed to the dual action simulation hypothesis, whereby AO and MI activate separable representations for action that may be later merged when they are congruent with one another. The present commentary more closely evaluates this explanation. What’s more, we offer an alternative information-based argument where the benefit to learning may be served instead by the availability of key information. Along these lines, we speculate on possible future directions including the need for a transfer design.

vorige artikel Potential benefits of synchronous action observation and motor imagery: a commentary on Eaves et al. 2022

volgende artikel A commentary on Eaves et al. with a special focus on clinical neurorehabilitation

Azaad, S., & Sebanz, N. (2023). Potential benefits of synchronous action observation and motor imagery: a commentary on Eaves et al. 2022. Psychological Research, 1–3.

Bird, G., & Heyes, C. (2005). Effector-dependent learning by observation of a finger movement sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(2), 262.PubMed

Boutin, A., Fries, U., Panzer, S., Shea, C. H., & Blandin, Y. (2010). Role of action observation and action in sequence learning and coding. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 240–251.CrossRefPubMed

Bruton, A. M., Holmes, P. S., Eaves, D. L., Franklin, Z. C., & Wright, D. J. (2020). Neurophysiological markers discriminate different forms of motor imagery during action observation. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 124, 119–136.CrossRefPubMed

Cisek, P., & Kalaska, J. F. (2010). Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33, 269–298.CrossRefPubMed

Deakin, J. M., & Proteau, L. (2000). The role of scheduling in learning through observation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(3), 268–276.CrossRefPubMed

Eaves, D. L., Riach, M., Holmes, P. S., & Wright, D. J. (2016). Motor imagery during action observation: A brief review of evidence, theory and future research opportunities. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10, 514.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Eaves, D. L., Hodges, N. J., Buckingham, G., Buccino, G., & Vogt, S. (2022). Enhancing motor imagery practice using synchronous action observation. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 1–17.

Frank, C., Wright, D. J., & Holmes, P. S. (2020). Mental simulation and neurocognition: Advances for motor imagery and action observation training in sport. In D. Hackfort & R. J. Schinke (Eds.), Routledge international encyclopedia of sport and exercise psychology. Volume 2: Applied and practical measures (pp. 411–428). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187228.

Georgopoulos, A. P., Schwartz, A. B., & Kettner, R. E. (1986). Neuronal population coding of movement direction. Science, 233(4771), 1416–1419.CrossRefPubMed

Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(2), 212–224.CrossRefPubMed

Hayes, S. J., Andrew, M., Elliott, D., Roberts, J. W., & Bennet, S. J. (2012a). Dissociable contributions of motor-execution and action-observation to intermanual transfer. Neuroscience Letters, 506(2), 346–350.CrossRefPubMed

Hayes, S. J., Elliott, D., Andrew, M., Roberts, J. W., & Bennet, S. J. (2012b). Dissociable contributions of motor-execution and action-observation to intramanual transfer. Experimental Brain Research, 221, 459–466.CrossRefPubMed

Heyes, C. M., & Foster, C. L. (2002). Motor learning by observation: Evidence from a serial reaction time task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 55(2), 593–607.CrossRef

Kim, T., Frank, C., & Schack, T. (2020). The effect of alternate training of action observation and motor imagery on cognitive and skill performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 51(2), 101–121.

Mackrous, I., & Proteau, L. (2007). Specificity of practice results from differences in movement planning strategies. Experimental Brain Research, 183, 181–193.CrossRefPubMed

Marshall, B., Wright, D. J., Holmes, P. S., & Wood, G. (2020). Combining action observation and motor imagery improves eye-hand coordination during novel visuomotor performance. Journal of Motor Behavior, 52(3), 333–341.CrossRefPubMed

Meers, R., Nuttall, H. E., & Vogt, S. (2020). Motor imagery alone drives corticospinal excitability during concurrent action observation and motor imagery. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 126, 322–333.CrossRefPubMed

Osman, M., Bird, G., & Heyes, C. (2005). Action observation supports effector-dependent learning of finger movement sequences. Experimental Brain Research, 165, 19–27.CrossRefPubMed

Romano-Smith, S. R., Wood, G., Coyles, G., Roberts, J. W., & Wakefield, C. J. (2019). The effect of action observation and motor imagery combinations on upper limb kinematics and EMG during dart-throwing. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 29(12), 1917–1929.CrossRef

Romano-Smith, S., Roberts, J. W., Wood, G., Coyles, G., & Wakefield, C. J. (2022). Simultaneous and alternate combinations of action-observation and motor imagery involve a common lower-level sensorimotor process. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 63, 102275.CrossRef

Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225.CrossRef

Shea, C. H., Wright, D. L., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (2000). Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(1), 27–36.CrossRefPubMed

Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.CrossRef

Trempe, M., Sabourin, M., Rohbanfard, H., & Proteau, L. (2011). Observation learning versus physical practice leads to different consolidation outcomes in a movement timing task. Experimental Brain Research, 209, 181–192.CrossRefPubMed

Wolpert, D. M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3(11), 1212–1217.CrossRefPubMed

Wright, D. J., Wood, G., Eaves, D. L., Bruton, A. M., Frank, C., & Franklin, Z. C. (2018). Corticospinal excitability is facilitated by combined action observation and motor imagery of a basketball free throw. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 114–121.CrossRef

Titel: Theoretical explanations and the availability of information for learning via combined action observation and motor imagery: a commentary on Eaves et al. (2022)
Auteurs: Stephanie L. Romano Smith
James W. Roberts
Anthony J. Miller
Caroline J. Wakefield
Publicatiedatum: 25-03-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2024
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01955-8

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2024

Towards formal models of inhibitory mechanisms involved in motor imagery: a commentary on Bach et al. (2022)

Research

It is time to integrate models across disciplines: a commentary on Krüger et al. (2022)

Open Access
Research

The complex interplay between perception, cognition, and action: a commentary on Bach et al. 2022

Open Access
Research

A commentary on Eaves et al. with a special focus on clinical neurorehabilitation

Open Access
Research

A theoretical perspective on action consequences in action imagery: internal prediction as an essential mechanism to detect errors: a commentary on Rieger et al. 2023

Research

Commentary on Frank et al., (2003): where does learning through motor imagery lie on the perceptual–motor continuum?

Research