Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37991593›Full record

ReviewPsychological research2024

Candidate brain regions for motor imagery practice: a commentary on Rieger et al., 2023.

Nobuaki Mizuguchi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Nobuaki MizuguchiResearch Organization of Science and Technology, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1 Noji-Higashi, Kusatsu, Shiga, 525-8577, Japan. nobuakimizuguchi@gmail.com.

Funding

JSPS KAKENHI 23K10625
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mechanism through which motor imagery practice improves motor performance remains unclear. In this special issue, Rieger et al. propose a model to explain why motor imagery practice improves motor performance. According to their model, motor imagery involves a comparison between intended and predicted action effects, allowing for the modification of the internal model upon detecting errors. I believe that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is a candidate as a brain region responsible for comparing intended and predicted action effects. Evidence supports this hypothesis, as a previous study has observed error-related activity in the ACC preceding incorrect responses (i.e., commission errors) in the Go/No-go task (Bediou et al., 2012, Neuroimage). Therefore, the error-related activity can be induced without any feedback. This fact also sheds light on the mechanisms of brain-computer interface. I believe that this additional literature will enhance Rieger's model.

Indexed as

Gyrus CinguliImaginationPsychomotor PerformanceBrainHumansMotor ActivityPractice, Psychological

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.