Imagine to Automatize: Automatization of Stimulus-response Coupling After Action Imagery Practice in Implicit Sequence Learning

Overview

Journal Psychol Res

Specialty Psychology

Date 2023 Mar 4

PMID 36871080

Authors

Stephan F Dahm

Henri Hyna

Daniel Krause

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Action imagery practice (AIP) describes the repetitive imagination of an action to improve subsequent action execution. Because AIP and action execution practice (AEP) draw on partly similar motor mechanisms, it was assumed that AIP may lead to motor automatization, which is observable in a reduction of dual-task costs after AEP. To investigate automatization in AIP, we compared dual-task and single-task performance in practice and random sequences in pretests and posttests. All participants practiced serial reactions to visual stimuli in ten single-task practice sessions. An AIP group imagined the reactions. An AEP group and a control practice group executed the reactions. Practice followed a sequential sequence in AIP and AEP but was random in control practice. In dual-task test conditions, tones were counted that appeared in addition to the visual stimuli. RTs decreased from pretest to posttest in both practice and random sequences in all groups indicating general sequence-unspecific learning. Further, RTs decreased to a greater extent in the practice sequence than in the random sequence after AIP and AEP, indicating sequence-specific learning. Dual-task costs-the difference between RTs after tone and no tone events-were reduced independent from the performed sequence in all groups indicating sequence-unspecific automatization. It is concluded that the stimulus-response coupling can be automatized by both, AEP and AIP.

Citing Articles

Kinesthetic vs. visual focus: No evidence for effects of practice modality in representation types after action imagery practice and action execution practice.

Dahm S, Rieger M Hum Mov Sci. 2023; 92:103154.

PMID: 37844453 PMC: 7615372. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2023.103154.

References

Verwey W, Shea C, Wright D . A cognitive framework for explaining serial processing and sequence execution strategies. Psychon Bull Rev. 2014; 22(1):54-77. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0773-4. View

Gruetzmacher N, Panzer S, Blandin Y, Shea C . Observation and physical practice: coding of simple motor sequences. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011; 64(6):1111-23. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2010.543286. View

Giesen C, Rothermund K . Adapting to stimulus-response contingencies without noticing them. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015; 41(6):1475-81. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000122. View

White A, Hardy L . Use of different imagery perspectives on the learning and performance of different motor skills. Br J Psychol. 1995; 86 ( Pt 2):169-80. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02554.x. View

Kal E, van der Kamp J, Houdijk H . External attentional focus enhances movement automatization: a comprehensive test of the constrained action hypothesis. Hum Mov Sci. 2013; 32(4):527-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2013.04.001. View

Agethen M, Krause D . Effects of bandwidth feedback on the automatization of an arm movement sequence. Hum Mov Sci. 2015; 45:71-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2015.11.005. View

OLDFIELD R . The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971; 9(1):97-113. DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4. View

Kraeutner S, Gaughan T, Eppler S, Boe S . Motor imagery-based implicit sequence learning depends on the formation of stimulus-response associations. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2017; 178:48-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.05.009. View

Amemiya K, Ishizu T, Ayabe T, Kojima S . Effects of motor imagery on intermanual transfer: a near-infrared spectroscopy and behavioural study. Brain Res. 2010; 1343:93-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.04.048. View

10.

Verwey W, Abrahamse E, de Kleine E . Cognitive processing in new and practiced discrete keying sequences. Front Psychol. 2011; 1:32. PMC: 3153751. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00032. View

11.

Scott M, Taylor S, Chesterton P, Vogt S, Eaves D . Motor imagery during action observation increases eccentric hamstring force: an acute non-physical intervention. Disabil Rehabil. 2017; 40(12):1443-1451. DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2017.1300333. View

12.

Glimcher P . Understanding dopamine and reinforcement learning: the dopamine reward prediction error hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108 Suppl 3:15647-54. PMC: 3176615. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1014269108. View

13.

Lotze M, Montoya P, Erb M, Hulsmann E, Flor H, Klose U . Activation of cortical and cerebellar motor areas during executed and imagined hand movements: an fMRI study. J Cogn Neurosci. 1999; 11(5):491-501. DOI: 10.1162/089892999563553. View

14.

Ingram T, Kraeutner S, Solomon J, Westwood D, Boe S . Skill acquisition via motor imagery relies on both motor and perceptual learning. Behav Neurosci. 2016; 130(2):252-60. DOI: 10.1037/bne0000126. View

15.

Zobe C, Krause D, Blischke K . Dissociative effects of normative feedback on motor automaticity and motor accuracy in learning an arm movement sequence. Hum Mov Sci. 2019; 66:529-540. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2019.06.004. View

16.

Ladda A, Lebon F, Lotze M . Using motor imagery practice for improving motor performance - A review. Brain Cogn. 2021; 150:105705. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105705. View

17.

Koch I, Hoffmann J . The role of stimulus-based and response-based spatial information in sequence learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000; 26(4):863-82. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.4.863. View

18.

Michel C, Gaveau J, Pozzo T, Papaxanthis C . Prism adaptation by mental practice. Cortex. 2013; 49(8):2249-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.11.008. View

19.

Koch I, Poljac E, Muller H, Kiesel A . Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking-An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychol Bull. 2018; 144(6):557-583. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000144. View

20.

Dahm S, Rieger M . Errors in Imagined and Executed Typing. Vision (Basel). 2019; 3(4). PMC: 6969896. DOI: 10.3390/vision3040066. View