Abstract:It has been proposed that the preparation of goal-direct actions involves internal movement simulation, or motor imagery. Evidence suggests that motor imagery is critically involved in the prediction of action consequences and contributes heavily to movement planning processes. The present study examined whether the sensitivity towards end-state comfort and the possibility/impossibility to perform an action sequence are considered during motor imagery. Participants performed a mental rotation task in which two images were simultaneously presented. The image on the left depicted the start posture of a right hand when grasping a bar, while the right image depicted the hand posture at the end of the action sequence. The right image displayed the bar in a vertical orientation with the hand in a comfortable (thumb-up) or in an uncomfortable (thumb-down) posture, while the bar in the left image was rotated in picture plane in steps of 45°. Crucially, the two images formed either a physically possible or physically impossible to perform action sequence. Results revealed strikingly different response time patterns for the two action sequence conditions. In general, response times increased almost monotonically with increasing angular disparity for the possible to perform action sequences. However, slight deviations from this monotonicity were apparent when the sequences contained an uncomfortable as opposed to a comfortable final posture. In contrast, for the impossible sequences, response times did not follow a typical mental rotation function, but instead were uniformly very slow. These findings suggest that both biomechanical constraints (i.e., end-state comfort) and the awareness of the possibility/impossibility to perform an action sequence are considered during motor imagery. We conclude that motor representations contain information about the spatiotemporal movement organization and the possibility of performing an action, which are crucially involved in anticipation and planning of action sequences.

When does imagery require motor resources? A commentary on Bach et al., 2022

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

Motor imagery, forward models and the cerebellum: a commentary on Rieger et al., 2023

Picture this! Suggested instructions for guiding the Neuroscience of action imagery: A commentary on Krüger et al. (2022)

Neuromuscular effects suggest that imagery engages motor components directly – a commentary on Frank et al. (2023)

Imagery practice of motor skills without conscious awareness?: a commentary to Frank et al.

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

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

Towards Enhancing Motor Imagery Based Brain-Computer Interface Performance By Integrating Speed Of Imagined Movement

Motor Imagery Enhances Performance Beyond the Imagined Action

Reading motor intention through mental imagery

Learning via imagery – merging techniques to improve the outcomes: a commentary on Frank et al. (2023)

Imagery and motor learning: a special issue on the neurocognitive mechanisms of imagery and imagery practice of motor actions

Does Motor Simulation Theory Explain the Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Motor Imagery? A Critical Review

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

Executive functions in motor imagery: support for the motor-cognitive model over the functional equivalence model

Imagined and Executed Actions in the Human Motor System: Testing Neural Similarity Between Execution and Imagery of Actions with a Multivariate Approach

The influence of action possibility and end-state comfort on motor imagery of manual action sequences

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

Imagery of movements immediately following performance allows learning of motor skills that interfere

Learning motor actions via imagery—perceptual or motor learning?