Motor imagery helps updating internal models during microgravity exposure

Even with exposure to errors, motor imagery cannot update internal models

Recent evidence suggests that motor imagery is insufficient for updating internal models, essential for predicting and refining overt movement outcomes. The covert nature of motor imagery limits exposure to errors, perhaps preventing the updating of internal models. To explore this, 90 participants were exposed to a prism that shifted vision leftward, completing 20 physical pointing trials followed by either 230 more physical pointing trials [physical practice (PP)], 230 imagined pointing trials [physical practice motor imagery (PP-MI)], 230 unrelated task trials [physical practice control (PP-CTRL)], or no further trials [physical practice none (PP-None)]. We hypothesized that if exposure to errors is needed for motor imagery to update internal models, then PP-MI would exhibit aftereffects, characterized by pointing opposite to the prism shift (i.e., rightwards), similar to PP, but differing from PP-CTRL and PP-None. After prism exposure, all groups showed significant aftereffects (PP: 4.73° ± 2.12°, PP-MI: 2.62 ± 1.61, PP-CTRL: 2.58 ± 1.53, PP-None: 3.11 ± 1.68), however there were no significant differences in the magnitude of aftereffects between PP-MI, and PP-CTRL/PP-None. Our findings demonstrate that motor imagery alone is insufficient for updating internal models, even when participants are initially exposed to errors under a prism shift. This further reinforces that motor imagery is not a direct simulation of overt movement, as proposed by Motor Simulation Theory- the foundation for its use in rehabilitation. Deepening our understanding of how learning occurs through motor imagery is crucial for enhancing its effectiveness in practical applications like rehabilitation.

Unlike overt movement, motor imagery cannot update internal models

In overt movement, internal models make predictions about the sensory consequences of a desired movement, generating the appropriate motor commands to achieve that movement. Using available sensory feedback, internal models are updated to allow for movement adaptation and in-turn better performance. Whether internal models are updated during motor imagery, the mental rehearsal of movement, is not well established. To investigate internal modelling during motor imagery, 66 participants were exposed to a leftwards prism shift while performing actual pointing movements (physical practice; PP), imagined pointing movements (motor imagery; MI), or no pointing movements (control). If motor imagery updates internal models, we hypothesized that aftereffects (pointing in the direction opposite the prism shift) would be observed in MI, like that of PP, and unlike that of control. After prism exposure, the magnitude of aftereffects was significant in PP (4.73° ± 1.56°), but not in MI (0.34° ± 0.96°) and control (0.34° ± 1.04°). Accordingly, PP differed significantly from MI and control. Our results show that motor imagery does not update internal models, suggesting that it is not a direct simulation of overt movement. Furthering our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie learning through motor imagery will lead to more effective applications of motor imagery.

Motor imagery for paediatric neurorehabilitation: how much do we know? Perspectives from a systematic review

Background

Motor Imagery (MI) is a cognitive process consisting in mental simulation of body movements without executing physical actions: its clinical use has been investigated prevalently in adults with neurological disorders.

Objectives

Review of the best-available evidence on the use and efficacy of MI interventions for neurorehabilitation purposes in common and rare childhood neurological disorders.

Methods

systematic literature search conducted according to PRISMA by using the Scopus, PsycArticles, Cinahl, PUBMED, Web of Science (Clarivate), EMBASE, PsychINFO, and COCHRANE databases, with levels of evidence scored by OCEBM and PEDro Scales.

Results

Twenty-two original studies were retrieved and included for the analysis; MI was the unique or complementary rehabilitative treatment in 476 individuals (aged 5 to 18 years) with 10 different neurological conditions including, cerebral palsies, stroke, coordination disorders, intellectual disabilities, brain and/or spinal cord injuries, autism, pain syndromes, and hyperactivity. The sample size ranged from single case reports to cohorts and control groups. Treatment lasted 2 days to 6 months with 1 to 24 sessions. MI tasks were conventional, graded or ad-hoc. MI measurement tools included movement assessment batteries, mental chronometry tests, scales, and questionnaires, EEG, and EMG. Overall, the use of MI was stated as effective in 19/22, and uncertain in the remnant studies.

Conclusion

MI could be a reliable supportive/add-on (home-based) rehabilitative tool for pediatric neurorehabilitation; its clinical use, in children, is highly dependent on the complexity of MI mechanisms, which are related to the underlying neurodevelopmental disorder.

Inter-Task Transfer of Prism Adaptation through Motor Imagery

Prism adaptation (PA) is a useful method to investigate short-term sensorimotor plasticity. Following active exposure to prisms, individuals show consistent after-effects, probing that they have adapted to the perturbation. Whether after-effects are transferable to another task or remain specific to the task performed under exposure, represents a crucial interest to understand the adaptive processes at work. Motor imagery (MI, i.e., the mental representation of an action without any concomitant execution) offers an original opportunity to investigate the role of cognitive aspects of motor command preparation disregarding actual sensory and motor information related to its execution. The aim of the study was to test whether prism adaptation through MI led to transferable after-effects. Forty-four healthy volunteers were exposed to a rightward prismatic deviation while performing actual (Active group) versus imagined (MI group) pointing movements, or while being inactive (inactive group). Upon prisms removal, in the MI group, only participants with the highest MI abilities (MI+ group) showed consistent after-effects on pointing and, crucially, a significant transfer to throwing. This was not observed in participants with lower MI abilities and in the inactive group. However, a direct comparison of pointing after-effects and transfer to throwing between MI+ and the control inactive group did not show any significant difference. Although this interpretation requires caution, these findings suggest that exposure to intersensory conflict might be responsible for sensory realignment during prism adaptation which could be transferred to another task. This study paves the way for further investigations into MI's potential to develop robust sensorimotor adaptation.

Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation Combined with Motor Imagery Changes Resting-State EEG Activity: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation is a novel non-invasive technique for applying repetitive magnetic stimulation to the peripheral nerves and muscles. Contrarily, a person imagines that he/she is exercising during motor imagery. Resting-state electroencephalography can evaluate the ability of motor imagery; however, the effects of motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on resting-state electroencephalography are unknown. We examined the effects of motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on the vividness of motor imagery and resting-state electroencephalography. The participants were divided into a motor imagery group and motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation group. They performed 60 motor imagery tasks involving wrist dorsiflexion movement. In the motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation group, we applied repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation to the extensor carpi radialis longus muscle during motor imagery. We measured the vividness of motor imagery and resting-state electroencephalography before and after the task. Both groups displayed a significant increase in the vividness of motor imagery. The motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation group exhibited increased β activity in the anterior cingulate cortex by source localization for electroencephalography. Hence, combined motor imagery and repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation changes the resting-state electroencephalography activity and may promote motor imagery.