Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32179942›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2020

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

Scott Glover, Elys Bibby, Elsa Tuomi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Location-Specific Disruption of the Body Schema in Chronic Low Back Pain.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Motor imagery enhances performance beyond the imagined action.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Stimulus specificity in combined action observation and motor imagery of typing.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Scott GloverDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, London, TW20 0EX, Surrey, UK. Scott.glover@rhul.ac.uk.
Elys BibbyDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, London, TW20 0EX, Surrey, UK.
Elsa TuomiDepartment of Psychology, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, London, TW20 0EX, Surrey, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The motor-cognitive model holds that motor imagery relies on executive resources to a much greater extent than do overt actions. According to this view, engaging executive resources with an interference task during motor imagery or overt actions will lead to a greater lengthening of the time required to imagine a movement than to execute it physically. This model is in contrast to a currently popular view, the functional equivalence model, which holds that motor imagery and overt action use identical mental processes, and thus should be equally affected by task manipulations. The two competing frameworks were tested in three experiments that varied the amount and type of executive resources needed to perform an interference task concurrent with either an overt or imagined version of a grasping and placing action. In Experiment 1, performing a concurrent calculation task led to a greater lengthening of the time required to execute motor imagery than overt action relative to a control condition involving no interference task. Further, an increase in the number of responses used to index performance affected the timing of motor imagery but not overt actions. In Experiment 2, a low-load repetition task interfered with the timing of motor imagery, but less so than a high load calculation task; both tasks had much smaller effects on overt actions. In Experiment 3, a word generation task also interfered with motor imagery much more than with overt actions. The results of these experiments provide broad support for the motor-cognitive model over the functional equivalence model in showing that interfering with executive functions had a much greater impact on the timing of motor imagery than on overt actions. The possible roles of different executive processes in motor imagery are discussed.

Indexed as

Models, PsychologicalAdultAttentionExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansImaginationMaleMotor ActivityPsychomotor PerformanceTime FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32179942
PMCPMC7181437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.