Trial reportPsychological research2025
Dopamine, motor imagery, and proprioception: a neurochemical probe into the perception-imagery debate.
Trial report in Psychological research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relationship between mental imagery and perception is a central debate in cognitive neuroscience. This study provides a pharmacological causal test of motor imagery frameworks by examining how acute dopaminergic modulation affects motor imagery and proprioceptive processing. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled pre–post design, 42 healthy adults received branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) to transiently reduce dopaminergic tone. Serum prolactin levels confirmed successful modulation: the BCAA group showed stable levels, while the placebo group exhibited the expected diurnal decline. Dopaminergic reduction impaired total motor imagery (total MIQ-3 performance) and selectively internal visual motor imagery, eliminating the practice-related improvement observed in the placebo group. In contrast, proprioceptive accuracy remained stable across constant error (CE) and variable error (VE), with Bayesian analyses showing anecdotal evidence for the null model (BF₁₀ < 1). For absolute error (AE), the evidence was weak to moderate in favor of the alternative (BF₁₀ = 2.61–3.96), indicating some support for a group difference but not strong enough to draw firm conclusions. Angle-dependent effects revealed greater undershooting at 50° than 30° in both groups, reflecting task difficulty rather than dopaminergic influence. This selective imagery impairment alongside stable proprioception challenges strong PM accounts that predict parallel modulation across domains and supports frameworks allowing functional dissociation between imagery and perceptual-motor processes. These findings highlight dopamine’s specific role in sustaining internal motor simulations, advancing theoretical debates on the relationship between imagery and perception.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41452542What 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.