Multiple roles of motor imagery during action observation

Over the last 20 years, the topics of action observation (AO) and motor imagery (MI) have been largely studied in isolation from each other, despite the early integrative account by Jeannerod (1994, 2001). Recent neuroimaging studies demonstrate enhanced cortical activity when AO and MI are performed concurrently (“AO+MI”), compared to either AO or MI performed in isolation. These results indicate the potentially beneficial effects of AO+MI, and they also demonstrate that the underlying neurocognitive processes are partly shared. We separately review the evidence for MI and AO as forms of motor simulation, and present two quantitative literature analyses that indeed indicate rather little overlap between the two bodies of research. We then propose a spectrum of concurrent AO+MI states, from congruent AO+MI where the contents of AO and MI widely overlap, over coordinative AO+MI, where observed and imagined action are different but can be coordinated with each other, to cases of conflicting AO+MI. We believe that an integrative account of AO and MI is theoretically attractive, that it should generate novel experimental approaches, and that it can also stimulate a wide range of applications in sport, occupational therapy, and neurorehabilitation

Motor imagery during action observation modulates automatic imitation effects in rhythmical actions

We have previously shown that passively observing a task-irrelevant rhythmical action can bias the cycle time of a subsequently executed rhythmical action. Here we use the same paradigm to investigate the impact of different forms of motor imagery (MI) during action observation (AO) on this automatic imitation (AI) effect. Participants saw a picture of the instructed action followed by a rhythmical distractor movie, wherein cycle time was subtly manipulated across trials. They then executed the instructed rhythmical action. When participants imagined performing the instructed action in synchrony with the distractor action (AO + MI), a strong imitation bias was found that was significantly greater than in our previous study. The bias was pronounced equally for compatible and incompatible trials, wherein observed and imagined actions were different in type (e.g., face washing vs. painting) or plane of movement, or both. In contrast, no imitation bias was observed when MI conflicted with AO. In Experiment 2, motor execution synchronised with AO produced a stronger imitation bias compared to AO + MI, showing an advantage in synchronisation for overt execution over MI. Furthermore, the bias was stronger when participants synchronised the instructed action with the distractor movie, compared to when they synchronised the distractor action with the distractor movie. Although we still observed a significant bias in the latter condition, this finding indicates a degree of specificity in AI effects for the identity of the synchronised action. Overall, our data show that MI can substantially modulate the effects of AO on subsequent execution, wherein: (1) combined AO + MI can enhance AI effects relative to passive AO; (2) observed and imagined actions can be flexibly coordinated across different action types and planes; and (3) conflicting AO + MI can abolish AI effects. Therefore, combined AO + MI instructions should be considered in motor training and rehabilitation

Brain-imaging during an isometric leg extension task at graded intensities

Imaging the brain during complex and intensive movements is challenging due to the susceptibility of brain-imaging methods for motion and myogenic artifacts. A few studies measured brain activity during either single-joint or low-intensity exercises; however, the cortical activation state during larger movements with increases up to maximal intensity has barely been investigated so far. Eleven right-handed volunteers (22-45 years in age) performed isometric leg extensions with their right leg at 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% of their maximal voluntary contraction. Contractions were hold for 20 seconds respectively. Electroencephalographic (EEG) and electromyographic (EMG) activity was recorded. Standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (sLORETA) was used to localize the cortical current density within the premotor (PMC), primary motor (M1), primary somatosensory (S1) and somatosensory association cortex (SAC). ANOVA was used for repeated measures for comparison of intensities and between the left and right hemispheres.The quality of the EEG signal was satisfying up to 80% intensity. At 100% half of the participants were not able to keep their neck and face muscles relaxed, leading to myogenic artifacts. Higher contralateral versus ipsilateral hemispheric activity was found for the S1, SAC and PMC. M1 possessed higher ipsilateral activity. The highest activity was localized in the M1, followed by S1, PMC and SAC. EMG activity and cortical current density within the M1 increased with exercise intensity. EEG recordings during bigger movements up to submaximal intensity (80%) are possible, but maximal intensities are still hard to investigate when subjects contracted their neck and face muscles at the same time. Isometric contractions mainly involve the M1, whereas the S1, PMC and SAC seem not to be involved in the force output. Limitations and recommendations for future studies are discussed