Quelles modulations cérébrales devrait-on renforcer pendant les procédures d''entraînement neurofeedback ciblant les capacités d'imagerie motrice ?

Abstract

International audienceMotor imagery (MI) can be defined as a « dynamic state during which one simulates an action mentally without any body movement » [1]. The aim of MI is to optimise learning (e.g., in athletic training) or re-learning (e.g., in motor rehabilitation after stroke) by mastering the technique of new motor skills but also through attentional focus [2] thanks to brain plasticity mechanisms. Indeed, similarities exist between MI and motor execution with regards to the solicitation of certain brain regions, including premotor, parietal, and somatosensory regions [3]. Furthermore, MI can also be used to manage emotions (e.g., stress and anxiety) [1]. Improvements in EEG equipment make cognitive training procedures based on neurofeedback (NF) possible, notably in contexts of MI training. Current NF protocols targeting MI consist in positively reinforcing the maximum modulation on sensorimotor rhythms (SMRs) from baseline levels, meaning that we consider that the growing expertise in the MI task will induce a higher desynchronisation of neurons in the sensorimotor cortices [4].Yet, experiments investigating the neural efficiency hypothesis have shown that experts happen to have a reduced modulation of neural activity in comparison to novices, which can be attributed to a more efficient resource distribution [2, 5, 6].In this context it would be interesting to compare cerebral activity patterns in MI experts and non-experts tested under different NF protocol.Therefore, prior to a future project, we would like to discuss the following question with the community: what should we reinforce during SMR-NF training procedures? Is the percentage of (de-)synchronisation, which is the metric that is most often used, actually relevant? We argue that more caution should be devoted to the selection of brain patterns to be targeted if we want to improve the efficiency of NF and BCI training procedures.References[1] Guillot, A. and Collet, C. (2008). Construction of the Motor Imagery Integrative Model in Sport: A review and theoretical investigation of motor imagery use. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology.[2] Budnik-Przybylska, D. et al. (2021). Neural Oscillation During Mental Imagery in Sport: An Olympic Sailor Case Study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 15, 669422.[3] Hardwick, R. M. et al. (2018). Neural Correlates of Action: Comparing Meta-Analyses of Imagery, Observation, and Execution. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 94, 31‑44.[4] Ono, T., Akio K., et Junichi U. (2013). Daily Training with Realistic Visual Feedback Improves Reproducibility of Event-Related Desynchronisation Following Hand Motor Imagery. Clinical Neurophysiology 124(9), 1779 86.[5] Del Percio, C. et al. (2008). Is There a “Neural Efficiency” in Athletes? A High-Resolution EEG Study. NeuroImage 42 (4), 1544‑53.[6] Del Percio, C. et al. (2009). “Neural Efficiency” of Athletes’ Brain for Upright Standing: A High-Resolution EEG Study. Brain Research Bulletin 79(3), 193‑200