ArticlePloS one2026
Mapping qualitative research on motor imagery: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo examine the extent to which qualitative methods have been used in motor imagery research, and to characterize how these approaches have been applied.
designScoping review conducted in accordance with JBI methodology.
methodsEligible articles included peer-reviewed literature investigating motor imagery using qualitative methods. Screening and data extraction were conducted in Covidence. Data were synthesized descriptively and presented in tabular form.
resultsThirty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Most were situated in sport psychology (n = 23; 59%), with athletes comprising the most frequently studied population (n = 20; 51.3%). Over half of the qualitative studies (n = 20; 51.3%) did not report a specific research design. The predominant focus was on how specific populations use motor imagery (n = 27; 69.2%), while only one study (2.6%) investigated learning through motor imagery. CONCLUSION AND IMPACT: The literature is heavily weighted toward sport psychology and understanding athletes' use of imagery, with limited attention to how motor imagery is experienced in experimental settings. Notably, few studies have examined the process of imagery - particularly its role in learning - within laboratory contexts. Given that such laboratory research often forms the foundation for the application of motor imagery in healthcare, including rehabilitation, the absence of qualitative insights into participants' experiences represents an important gap. Clearer reporting of qualitative designs and more in-depth exploration of motor imagery experiences are needed to ensure that applications, particularly in rehabilitation, are grounded in the perspectives of those engaging in motor imagery practice.
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.