↓ Skip to main content

Does motor imagery share neural networks with executed movement: a multivariate fMRI analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does motor imagery share neural networks with executed movement: a multivariate fMRI analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00564
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikhil Sharma, Jean-Claude Baron

Abstract

Introduction: Motor imagery (MI) is the mental rehearsal of a motor first person action-representation. There is interest in using MI to access the motor network after stroke. Conventional fMRI modeling has shown that MI and executed movement (EM) activate similar cortical areas but it remains unknown whether they share cortical networks. Proving this is central to using MI to access the motor network and as a form of motor training. Here we use multivariate analysis (tensor independent component analysis-TICA) to map the array of neural networks involved during MI and EM. Methods: Fifteen right-handed healthy volunteers (mean-age 28.4 years) were recruited and screened for their ability to carry out MI (Chaotic MI Assessment). fMRI consisted of an auditory-paced (1 Hz) right hand finger-thumb opposition sequence (2,3,4,5; 2…) with two separate runs acquired (MI & rest and EM & rest: block design). No distinction was made between MI and EM until the final stage of processing. This allowed TICA to identify independent-components (IC) that are common or distinct to both tasks with no prior assumptions. Results: TICA defined 52 ICs. Non-significant ICs and those representing artifact were excluded. Components in which the subject scores were significantly different to zero (for either EM or MI) were included. Seven IC remained. There were IC's shared between EM and MI involving the contralateral BA4, PMd, parietal areas and SMA. IC's exclusive to EM involved the contralateral BA4, S1 and ipsilateral cerebellum whereas the IC related exclusively to MI involved ipsilateral BA4 and PMd. Conclusion: In addition to networks specific to each task indicating a degree of independence, we formally demonstrate here for the first time that MI and EM share cortical networks. This significantly strengthens the rationale for using MI to access the motor networks, but the results also highlight important differences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 193 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 19%
Researcher 31 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 42 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 36 18%
Psychology 30 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 53 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2013.
All research outputs
#5,054,071
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,206
of 7,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,274
of 288,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#314
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.