ReviewFrontiers in human neuroscience2023
Motor imagery training to improve language processing: What are the arguments?
Review in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- MEG state dynamics of sentence generation: evidence for a compensatory segmentation mechanism in healthy aging.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Article
- Enhancing English language acquisition through physical education and motor imagery: assessing enjoyment, English retention, and skill accuracy in adolescent learners.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Brain-computer interfaces and human factors: the role of language and cultural differences-Still a missing gap?Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- Effects and mechanisms of theta burst stimulation targeting individualized pre-supplementary motor area for post-stroke aphasia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies showed that motor expertise was found to induce improvement in language processing. Grounded and situated approaches attributed this effect to an underlying automatic simulation of the motor experience elicited by action words, similar to motor imagery (MI), and suggest shared representations of action conceptualization. Interestingly, recent results also suggest that the mental simulation of action by MI training induces motor-system modifications and improves motor performance. Consequently, we hypothesize that, since MI training can induce motor-system modifications, it could be used to reinforce the functional connections between motor and language system, and could thus lead to improved language performance. Here, we explore these potential interactions by reviewing recent fundamental and clinical literature in the action-language and MI domains. We suggested that exploiting the link between action language and MI could open new avenues for complementary language improvement programs. We summarize the current literature to evaluate the rationale behind this novel training and to explore the mechanisms underlying MI and its impact on language performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.