Literature DB >> 17973107

High loads induce differences between actual and imagined movement duration.

Andrew B Slifkin1.   

Abstract

Actual and imagined action may be governed by common information and neural processes. This hypothesis has found strong support from a range of chronometric studies showing that it takes the same amount of time to actually move and to imagine moving. However, exceptions have been observed when actual and imagined movements were made under conditions of inertial loading: sometimes the equivalency of actual and imagined movement durations (MDs) has been preserved, and other times it has been disrupted. The purpose of the current study was to test the hypothesis that the appearance and magnitude of actual-imagined MD differences in those studies was dependent on the level of load relative to the maximum loading capacity of the involved effector system [the maximum voluntary load (MVL)]. The experiment required 12 young, healthy humans to actually produce, and to imagine producing, single degree of freedom index finger movements under a range of loads (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80% MVL). As predicted, statistically significant actual-imagined MD differences were absent at lower loads (0-20% MVL), but differences appeared and increased in magnitude with further increases in %MVL (40 and 80% MVL). That pattern of results may relate to the common, everyday experience individuals have in interacting with loads. Participants are likely to have extensive experience interacting with very low loads, but not high loads. It follows that the control of low inertial loads should be governed by complete central representations of action, while representations should be less complete for high loads. A consequence may be increases in the uncertainty of predicting motor output with increases in load. Compensation for the increased uncertainty may appear as increases in the MD values selected during both the preparation and imagery of action--according to a speed-uncertainty trade-off. Then, during actual action, MD may be reduced if movement-related feedback indicates that a faster movement would succeed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17973107     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-1154-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  40 in total

1.  Noise, information transmission, and force variability.

Authors:  A B Slifkin; K M Newell
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  INFORMATION CAPACITY OF DISCRETE MOTOR RESPONSES.

Authors:  P M FITTS; J R PETERSON
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1964-02

3.  Neural circuits involved in the recognition of actions performed by nonconspecifics: an FMRI study.

Authors:  Giovanni Buccino; Fausta Lui; Nicola Canessa; Ilaria Patteri; Giovanna Lagravinese; Francesca Benuzzi; Carlo A Porro; Giacomo Rizzolatti
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.225

4.  A principle of error compensation studied within a task of force production by a redundant set of fingers.

Authors:  M L Latash; Z M Li; V M Zatsiorsky
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 5.  The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery.

Authors:  J Decety
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 6.  Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate?

Authors:  J Decety
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  1996-03

7.  Intake of umami-tasting solutions by mice: a genetic analysis.

Authors:  A A Bachmanov; M G Tordoff; G K Beauchamp
Journal:  J Nutr       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.798

8.  An internal model for sensorimotor integration.

Authors:  D M Wolpert; Z Ghahramani; M I Jordan
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-09-29       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Some factors pertinent to the organization and control of arm movements.

Authors:  F Lacquaniti; J F Soechting; C A Terzuolo
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1982-12-09       Impact factor: 3.252

10.  The mental representation of hand movements after parietal cortex damage.

Authors:  A Sirigu; J R Duhamel; L Cohen; B Pillon; B Dubois; Y Agid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1996-09-13       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  8 in total

1.  Misperceiving the speed-accuracy tradeoff: imagined movements and perceptual decisions.

Authors:  Scott J Young; Jay Pratt; Tom Chau
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-09-20       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Motor imagery effectiveness for mirror reversed movements.

Authors:  Ursula Debarnot; Gaetano Valenza; Stéphane Champely; Enzo Pasquale Scilingo; Danilo De Rossi; Aymeric Guillot
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.282

3.  Motor imagery of locomotion with an additional load: actual load experience does not affect differences between physical and mental durations.

Authors:  Jörn Munzert; Klaus Blischke; Britta Krüger
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-12-04       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Motor imagery of tool use: relationship to actual use and adherence to Fitts’ law across tasks.

Authors:  Kristen L Macuga; Athan P Papailiou
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Mental representation of arm motion dynamics in children and adolescents.

Authors:  Lionel Crognier; Xanthi Skoura; Annie Vinter; Charalambos Papaxanthis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Physiological changes in response to apnea impact the timing of motor representations: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Franck Di Rienzo; Nady Hoyek; Christian Collet; Aymeric Guillot
Journal:  Behav Brain Funct       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 3.759

7.  Executive functions in motor imagery: support for the motor-cognitive model over the functional equivalence model.

Authors:  Scott Glover; Elys Bibby; Elsa Tuomi
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain - Does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise?

Authors:  James W Roberts; Greg Wood; Caroline J Wakefield
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 1.972

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.