Cargando…
Examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain – Does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise?
Motor imagery is suggested to be functionally equivalent to physical execution as they each utilise a common neural representation. The present study examined whether motor imagery correspondingly reflects the spatial characteristics of physically executed movements, including the signal-dependent n...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7644523/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33084933 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05939-z |
_version_ | 1783606475589943296 |
---|---|
author | Roberts, James W. Wood, Greg Wakefield, Caroline J. |
author_facet | Roberts, James W. Wood, Greg Wakefield, Caroline J. |
author_sort | Roberts, James W. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Motor imagery is suggested to be functionally equivalent to physical execution as they each utilise a common neural representation. The present study examined whether motor imagery correspondingly reflects the spatial characteristics of physically executed movements, including the signal-dependent noise that typically manifests in more variable end locations (as indicated by effective target width; W(e)). Participants executed or imagined a single, upper-limb target-directed aim in the horizontal medio-lateral direction. The start and end of the imagined movements were indexed by the lifting and lowering of the limb over the home position, respectively. Following each imagined movement, participants had to additionally estimate their imagined end location relative to the target. All the movements had to be completed at a pre-specified criterion time (400 ms, 600 ms, 800 ms). The results indicated that the W(e) increased following a decrease in movement time for execution, but not imagery. Moreover, the total error of imagined movements was greater than the actual error of executed movements. While motor imagery may comprise a neural representation that also contributes to the execution of movements, it is unable to closely reflect the random sources of variability. This limitation of motor imagery may be attributed to the comparatively limited efferent motor signals. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7644523 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76445232020-11-10 Examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain – Does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise? Roberts, James W. Wood, Greg Wakefield, Caroline J. Exp Brain Res Research Article Motor imagery is suggested to be functionally equivalent to physical execution as they each utilise a common neural representation. The present study examined whether motor imagery correspondingly reflects the spatial characteristics of physically executed movements, including the signal-dependent noise that typically manifests in more variable end locations (as indicated by effective target width; W(e)). Participants executed or imagined a single, upper-limb target-directed aim in the horizontal medio-lateral direction. The start and end of the imagined movements were indexed by the lifting and lowering of the limb over the home position, respectively. Following each imagined movement, participants had to additionally estimate their imagined end location relative to the target. All the movements had to be completed at a pre-specified criterion time (400 ms, 600 ms, 800 ms). The results indicated that the W(e) increased following a decrease in movement time for execution, but not imagery. Moreover, the total error of imagined movements was greater than the actual error of executed movements. While motor imagery may comprise a neural representation that also contributes to the execution of movements, it is unable to closely reflect the random sources of variability. This limitation of motor imagery may be attributed to the comparatively limited efferent motor signals. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-10-21 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7644523/ /pubmed/33084933 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05939-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Roberts, James W. Wood, Greg Wakefield, Caroline J. Examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain – Does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise? |
title | Examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain – Does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise? |
title_full | Examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain – Does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise? |
title_fullStr | Examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain – Does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise? |
title_full_unstemmed | Examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain – Does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise? |
title_short | Examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain – Does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise? |
title_sort | examining the equivalence between imagery and execution within the spatial domain – does motor imagery account for signal-dependent noise? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7644523/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33084933 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-020-05939-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT robertsjamesw examiningtheequivalencebetweenimageryandexecutionwithinthespatialdomaindoesmotorimageryaccountforsignaldependentnoise AT woodgreg examiningtheequivalencebetweenimageryandexecutionwithinthespatialdomaindoesmotorimageryaccountforsignaldependentnoise AT wakefieldcarolinej examiningtheequivalencebetweenimageryandexecutionwithinthespatialdomaindoesmotorimageryaccountforsignaldependentnoise |