Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36574019›Full record

ReviewPsychological research2024

Enhancing motor imagery practice using synchronous action observation.

Daniel L Eaves, Nicola J Hodges, Gavin Buckingham, Giovanni Buccino, Stefan Vogt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Motor imagery in autism: a systematic review.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Stimulus specificity in combined action observation and motor imagery of typing.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  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

5 authors.

Daniel L EavesSchool of Biomedical, Nutritional and Sport Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. daniel.eaves@newcastle.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2436-7694
Nicola J HodgesSchool of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3899-8550
Gavin BuckinghamDepartment of Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6950-5504
Giovanni BuccinoDivision of Neuroscience, IRCCS San Raffaele and Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5432-1756
Stefan VogtDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. s.vogt@lancaster.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4627-3410

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss a variety of ways in which practising motor actions by means of motor imagery (MI) can be enhanced via synchronous action observation (AO), that is, by AO + MI. We review the available research on the (mostly facilitatory) behavioural effects of AO + MI practice in the early stages of skill acquisition, discuss possible theoretical explanations, and consider several issues related to the choice and presentation schedules of suitable models. We then discuss considerations related to AO + MI practice at advanced skill levels, including expertise effects, practical recommendations such as focussing attention on specific aspects of the observed action, using just-ahead models, and possible effects of the perspective in which the observed action is presented. In section "Coordinative AO + MI", we consider scenarios where the observer imagines performing an action that complements or responds to the observed action, as a promising and yet under-researched application of AO + MI training. In section "The dual action simulation hypothesis of AO + MI", we review the neurocognitive hypothesis that AO + MI practice involves two parallel action simulations, and we consider opportunities for future research based on recent neuroimaging work on parallel motor representations. In section "AO + MI training in motor rehabilitation", we review applications of AO, MI, and AO + MI training in the field of neurorehabilitation. Taken together, this evidence-based, exploratory review opens a variety of avenues for future research and applications of AO + MI practice, highlighting several clear advantages over the approaches of purely AO- or MI-based practice.

Indexed as

ImaginationHumansMotor ActivityMotor SkillsPractice, PsychologicalPsychomotor Performance

Identifiers

PMID36574019
PMCPMC11315722

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.