ArticleScientific reports2026
Motor imagery perspective shapes corticospinal excitability with effector-specific effects.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motor imagery (MI) allows individuals to mentally simulate movements without execution, engaging neural pathways that overlap with those used during real actions. However, how imagery perspective influences corticospinal excitability across different effectors remains unclear. Using neuronavigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), we compared kinesthetic (KMI), first-person visual (VMI-1PP), and third-person visual (VMI-3PP) imagery of elbow flexion-extension in nineteen healthy adults. Single-pulse TMS was synchronized with a metronome marking the imagined peak contraction, and motor-evoked potentials were recorded from upper-arm and intrinsic hand muscles. All imagery types enhanced corticospinal excitability relative to a pacing-only baseline. For upper-arm muscles, VMI-3PP and KMI produced stronger facilitation than VMI-1PP, with no difference between KMI and VMI-3PP. In contrast, intrinsic hand muscles showed similar facilitation across all imagery types. These findings reveal that imagery perspective and effector interact to shape corticospinal output: proximal muscles are more sensitive to perspective, whereas distal muscles respond uniformly. The observation that third-person visual imagery can match kinesthetic imagery in enhancing corticospinal excitability highlights its potential as a practical and effective strategy for training and neurorehabilitation.
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.