No increase in corticospinal excitability during motor simulation provides a platform to explore the neurophysiology of aphantasia

This scientific commentary refers to ‘Explicit and implicit motor simulations are impaired in individuals with aphantasia’, by Dupont  et al. (https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcae072) in Brain Communication

Development and Validation of the Combined Action Observation and Motor Imagery Ability Questionnaire

Combined use of action observation and motor imagery (AOMI) is an increasingly popular motor-simulation intervention, which involves observing movements on video while simultaneously imagining the feeling of movement execution. Measuring and reporting participant imagery-ability characteristics are essential in motor-simulation research, but no measure of AOMI ability currently exists. Accordingly, the AOMI Ability Questionnaire (AOMI-AQ) was developed to address this gap in the literature. In Study 1, two hundred eleven participants completed the AOMI-AQ and the kinesthetic imagery subscales of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 and Vividness of Motor Imagery Questionnaire-2. Following exploratory factor analysis, an 8-item AOMI-AQ was found to correlate positively with existing motor-imagery measures. In Study 2, one hundred seventy-four participants completed the AOMI-AQ for a second time after a period of 7-10 days. Results indicate a good test-retest reliability for the AOMI-AQ. The new AOMI-AQ measure provides a valid and reliable tool for researchers and practitioners wishing to assess AOMI ability

Guidelines for Reporting Action Simulation Studies (GRASS): proposals to improve reporting of research in Motor Imagery and Action Observation

Data availability: No data was used for the research described in the article.Supplementary data is available online at: . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393223002671#appsec4 .The version on this institutional repository is also available on PsyArXiv Preprints. It may not have been certified by peer review.Researchers from multiple disciplines have studied the simulation of actions through motor imagery, action observation, or their combination. Procedures used in these studies vary considerably between research groups, and no standardized approach to reporting experimental protocols has been proposed. This has led to under-reporting of critical details, impairing the assessment, replication, synthesis, and potential clinical translation of effects. We provide an overview of issues related to the reporting of information in action simulation studies, and discuss the benefits of standardized reporting. We propose a series of checklists that identify key details of research protocols to include when reporting action simulation studies. Each checklist comprises A) essential methodological details, B) essential details that are relevant to a specific mode of action simulation, and C) further points that may be useful on a case-by-case basis. We anticipate that the use of these guidelines will improve the understanding, reproduction, and synthesis of studies using action simulation, and enhance the translation of research using motor imagery and action observation to applied and clinical settings...