↓ Skip to main content

The comparison between motor imagery and verbal rehearsal on the learning of sequential movements

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
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
The comparison between motor imagery and verbal rehearsal on the learning of sequential movements
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00773
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnaud Saimpont, Martin F. Lafleur, Francine Malouin, Carol L. Richards, Julien Doyon, hb Philip L. Jackson

Abstract

Mental practice refers to the cognitive rehearsal of a physical activity. It is widely used by athletes to enhance their performance and its efficiency to help train motor function in people with physical disabilities is now recognized. Mental practice is generally based on motor imagery (MI), i.e., the conscious simulation of a movement without its actual execution. It may also be based on verbal rehearsal (VR), i.e., the silent rehearsal of the labels associated with an action. In this study, the effect of MI training or VR on the learning and retention of a foot-sequence task was investigated. Thirty right-footed subjects, aged between 22 and 37 years old (mean: 27.4 ± 4.1 years) and randomly assigned to one of three groups, practiced a serial reaction time task involving a sequence of three dorsiflexions and three plantar flexions with the left foot. One group (n = 10) mentally practiced the sequence with MI for 5 weeks, another group (n = 10) mentally practiced the sequence with VR of the foot positions for the same duration, and a control group (n = 10) did not practice the sequence mentally. The time to perform the practiced sequence as well as an unpracticed sequence was recorded before training, immediately after training and 6 months after training (retention). The main results showed that the speed improvement after training was significantly greater in the MI group compared to the control group and tended to be greater in the VR group compared to the control group. The improvement in performance did not differ in the MI and VR groups. At retention, however, no difference in response times was found among the three groups, indicating that the effect of mental practice did not last over a long period without training. Interestingly, this pattern of results was similar for the practiced and non-practiced sequence. Overall, these results suggest that both MI training and VR help to improve motor performance and that mental practice may induce non-specific effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 83 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 18%
Sports and Recreations 12 14%
Neuroscience 11 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 14 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 November 2013.
All research outputs
#18,353,475
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,053
of 7,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,076
of 280,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#764
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.