The role of motor imagery in learning via instructions

TLDR: It is proposed that motor imagery also leads to a shift in processing mode and to the formation of a pragmatic task representation, albeit a less detailed one as compared to the representation that is formed on the basis of physical practice.

About: This article is published in Acta Psychologica.The article was published on 2017-05-23 and is currently open access. It has received 14 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Motor imagery & Task (project management).

Figures

Table 2. Cell means and corresponding standard deviations of Experiment 1. Standard deviations are printed between brackets. Timing components are expressed in milliseconds.

Table 1. Overview of the Dutch word stimuli.

Table 3. Cell means and corresponding standard deviations of Experiment 2. Standard deviations are printed between brackets. Timing components are expressed in milliseconds.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "The role of motor imagery in learning via instructions" ?

Two experiments are reported that studied the extent to which motor imagery can enhance the application of novel instructions. The authors propose that motor imagery also leads to a shift in processing mode and to the formation of a pragmatic task representation, albeit a less detailed one as compared to the representation that is formed on the basis of physical practice. Accordingly, the aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of MI and PP in the application of novel instructions. The PP of novel instructions, however, is assumed to lead to the formation of a second representation, which the authors label as a pragmatic task representation. Ramamoorthy and Verguts ( 2012 ) propose that the second route learns S-R associations on the basis of Hebbian learning, following the application of these S-R associations through the first route. Simulations indicated that the model of Ramamoorthy and Verguts ( 2012 ) is able to account for the results of Ruge and Wolfensteller ( 2010 ), but also for other findings such as the instruction-based congruency effect reported by Waszak, Wenke, and Brass ( 2008 ) as well as the dissociation between instruction understanding and instruction following ( e. g., Duncan, Emslie, & Williams, 1996 ; Luria, 1966 ). The study of Ramamoorthy and Verguts ( 2012 ) as well as the study of Ruge and Wolfensteller ( 2010 ) support the conclusion that the application of novel instructions quickly improves through PP and that this improvement is underlain by a shift in processing mode. The central question in the present study is whether such shift in processing can be obtained on the basis of MI, which would strengthen the hypothesis that MI is part of the implementation of novel instructions. Their results suggest that whereas physical practice improves response selection and movement execution, motor imagery only improves response selection. In recent years, however, an increasing amount of research suggests that novel instructions specifying S-R mappings ( e. g., De Houwer et al., 2005 ; Liefooghe et al., 2012 ; Meiran et al., 2015 ; Cohen-Kdoshay & Meiran, 2007 ; Wenke, et al., 2007 ), but also instructions specifying response-effect contingencies ( Theeuwes, De Houwer, Eder, & Liefooghe, 2015 ) and even No-Go instructions ( Liefooghe, Degryse, & Theeuwes, 2016 ) can also lead to automatic effects. Such pattern suggests a reduced involvement of executive control following PP. Furthermore, Ruge and Wolfensteller ( 2010 ) observed that a stronger activation in the lateral pre-motor cortex and prefrontal cortex during the encoding of the novel S-R mappings, predicted enhanced performance improvement during the training phase. This finding led to the suggestion that the formation of a pragmatic task representation can be initiated even before PP, on the basis of MI. 

Q2. What are the future works mentioned in the paper "The role of motor imagery in learning via instructions" ?

In view of the beneficial effects of MI, future research may want to focus on the role of MI in the construction of a procedural representation on the basis of instructions. Understanding the timing of motor imagery: recent findings and future directions. Further evidence for the role of mode-independent short-term associations in spatial Simon effects. 

Q3. What was the only dependent variable that was common to the training phases of the three training conditions?

The length of the inter-home key intervals was the only dependentvariable that was common to the training phases of the three training conditions. 

Q4. Why were some sequences easier to chunk and execute than others?

Because the different response sequences were created randomly, some sequences were easier to chunk and execute than other sequences. 

Q5. What does the research suggest that PP improves performance?

In addition, PP improves the selection and retrieval of a response sequence, as well as the execution of the movements corresponding with this responsesequence. 

Q6. How long did the participants wait for the correct response sequence?

After an incorrect response sequence, the message “FOUT” (“Wrong” in Dutch) was presented accompanied by the correct response sequence for 500ms. 

Q7. What is the effect of PP on the application of novel instructions?

Motor Imagery and Learning via InstructionsPrevious research on the effect of PP on the application of novel instructions, suggestedthat PP leads to a quick shift in processing mode. 

Q8. What is the role of the flanker paradigm in the development of motor skills?

The representation of instructions in workingmemory leads to autonomous response activation: evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. 

Q9. What is the effect of a within-subjects design?

The use of a within-subjects design could induce the carry-over of response strategies, which are known to modulate experimental results (e.g., Greenwald, 1976; Poulton, 1973, see Altmann, 2005 for a more recent example). 

Q10. Why was the training phase not discarded?

When trimming the data, errors were not discarded from the PP condition, because no error data was available from the training phases of the NP and the MI condition. 

Q11. What is the effect of the sequence distance on the inter-home key intervals in the MI?

In thetraining phase, the inter-home key intervals were again longer in the MI condition compared to the NP condition and the sequence distance modulated the length of inter-home key intervals in the MI condition. 

Q12. What was the length of the inter home key interval of the first response?

The length of the inter home-key interval of the first response was defined as the time between the stimulus onset and the first time participants pressed down the home-key after releasing the home-key in order to physically or mentally enter the first letter-key. 

Q13. What type of response could be entered as a fixed effect?

In principle, the type of response (first response, subsequent responses) could also be entered as a fixed effect, but for reasons of clarity the authors preferred to treat both types of responses in a separate analysis. 

Q14. What was the message that was presented when the participants pressed the spacebar?

When a letter-key was pressed physically, an error message was presented stating “De toetsen niet indrukken!” (“Do not press the keys!”, in Dutch). 

Q15. What is the degree by which the fast route takes over control?

the degree by which the fast route takes over control may depend on the extent by which the S-R mappings are applied on the basis of the slow route. 

Q16. What could be argued that the use of two trials in the test phase could bias the measurement?

It could be argued that the use of two trials in the test phase (i.e., one probe for each mapping) could bias the measurement of performance improvement following PP, MI, and NP.