Motor Imagery: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Semen Kurkin
,
,
Alexander E. Hramov

Scholars have recently used “motor imagery” (MI) to refer to the imagination of moving particular body parts. Among the frameworks trying to explain the essence of motor imagery, there are two primary ones—motor simulation and motor emulation theory.

  • motor imagery
  • movement imagination
  • motor imagery assessment

1. Introduction

The Motor Simulation Theory (MST) [1][2] provides a constructive explanation of the relation of imagery tasks such as motor imagery (MI task), observation, and the intention of motor tasks to motor execution (ME) tasks itself. According to MST, motor images have the same properties as analogous motor representations and thus have the same functional relationship to the perceived or represented movement and the same causal role in its development [1]. Alternatively, according to emulation theory, to simulate mechanical movement, proprioception, and kinesthesis, the “forward model” is represented by motor commands that drive body/environment emulators, which are motor and sensory representations. In such a way, coupled motor and sensory systems form a complex process of emulation that provides an adaptive motor control mechanism for ME. While performing MI, the motor system is coupled with afferent sensory systems, which provide the sensor feedback without input for MI [3].

2. Generalization of Brain Regions Involved in MI and ME

Studying and systematizing collected data to compare MI and ME emerged results represented in Table 1 and Figure 1. There is a significant overlap of the brain regions responsible for MI and ME. This similarity in brain activation for MI and ME could be explained by belonging to the same motor representation system [4]. Nevertheless, even though most research in this field is focused on activation sites overlap, a more comprehensive observation indicated significant differences between motor imagery and physical execution.
Figure 1. Activation maps of brain regions during MI and ME. (Left) Brain activation map for MI; (right) brain activation map of ME. Abbreviations: PMC—premotor cortex, M1—primary motor cortex, S1, S2—primary and secondary somatosensory cortices, SMA—supplementary motor area, CN—caudate nucleus, LCH—lateral cerebellar hemisphere, ACH—anterior cerebellar hemisphere, SPL—superior parietal lobe, IPL—inferior parietal lobe, DLPFC—left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The intensity of color depicts the strength of activity in the corresponding region.
Table 1. Brain areas activated during MI and ME, aggregated papers.
Brain Area Common for MI and ME MI ME
Inferior parietal lobe [5][6] [5][6][7] [5][6]
Superior parietal lobe [6][8][9] [6][7][8][9] [6][8][9]
Posterior parietal lobe [10] [10][11][12] [10]
Frontal parietal lobe [4][13] [4][10][13] [4][13]
Prefrontal cortex [14] [14] [13][14]
Subcortical [13] [6][13] [13]
Rostral premotor - [12][13] -
Striatum [5][13] [5][7][13][15][16] [5][13]
Cerebellar areas [4][6][10][13][14][17] [4][6][10][13] [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][13][14][16][17]
M1 [6][9][17][18] [6][9][17][18][19][20] [4][5][6][9][10][14][16][17][18][20]
S1 [9][17] [9][17] [9][10][14][17][20]
S2 [21] [21] [21]
SMA [8][9][14][17] [6][8][9][10][14][17] [4][5][8][9][14][17]
PMC [9][17] [9][17] [7][9][17]
Central sulcus - [13] -
Precentral gyri - - [18]
Frontal gyri - [10] -
Left DLPFC - [22] -

3. Motor Imagery Assessment

Imagination is a complex phenomenon in which vividness, intensity, and representation are not the same in every person [23][24]. Studies show that some people cannot even use various types of imagination, including motor imagination [24]. The difference from person to person in terms of forms of imagination makes the research process in this field complex. Therefore, assessing imagery ability prior to conducting an imagery experiment or participating in an imagery training program is essential.
For creating a successful method for assessing MI, it is crucial to understand its properties and aspects that could be expressed numerically and evaluated for a subject. According to Jeannerod [25], motor representations are involved in both conscious and unconscious cognitive activities. Examples involving conscious motor representation are imagining a limb movement in the first person and dreams, so-called explicit motor imagery. In contrast, examples that involve unconscious motor representations are prospective action judgments and motorically driven perceptual decisions (e.g., defining hand laterality in different depicted positions), so-called implicit motor imagery. Jeannerod also distinguished motor imagery from dynamic visual imagery and movement imagery from an external viewpoint, referring them to a visual type of imagery. The essential part of motor imagery that distinguishes this type of imagery from a visual one is a kinaesthetic sensation that allows the subject to experience the feeling of performing movements. Nevertheless, the phenomenon of motor imagery could not be reduced to the kinesthetic sense only as it develops in a body-centered and visuospatial context. So, motor imagery includes kinesthetic, visual, and spatial aspects of movement executed by an imager [26]. Therefore, all of the above aspects as characteristics of the experiencing of imaginative movement must be considered when assessing motor imagination.

4. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in MI Research

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is widely accepted as a powerful noninvasive tool for analyzing the central and peripheral nervous systems of people. Magnetic stimulation has a similar activation mechanism to electrical stimulation for activating peripheral nerves. TMS excites the pyramidal neurons transsynaptically resulting in the rise of I (indirect) waves. In contrast, transcranial electrical stimulation excites the pyramidal tract axons directly, either at the beginning segment of the neuron or at proximal internodes in the subcortical white matter, resulting in D (direct) waves [27].
The significant and well-studied feature of TMS is its application in motor and motor imagery studies. Figure 2 demonstrates the most commonly used TMS protocols in MI research. TMS applied to the motor cortex induces an excitatory effect on corticospinal neurons, which can be assessed with electromyography as motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and/or [27]. Moreover, cortical stimulation with TMS can induce not only excitatory effects but inhibitory too. This characteristic may be utilized to analyze functions of the brain regions other than the motor cortex. It results in the capability of TMS to map brain regions and investigate functional connectivity among distinct cortical regions [27]. Another crucial feature of TMS is its long-term effect on brain function. Even after stopping the stimulation, the corresponding stimulating effect lasts for a long time (starting from several hours to several months in the case of medical applications [28][29][30]). All these features make TMS a powerful tool for motor imagery studies.
Diagnostics 12 00949 g002 550
Figure 2. Types of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) applied in MI research.

5. Applications, MI for Diagnostics

The applications of MI for BCI operation, in rehabilitation systems in sports, have become conventional. There is a bulk of papers and reviews on these issues [31][32][33][34][35][36]. Another exciting and promising trend in MI applications is researching and diagnosing various neurodegenerative diseases and psychoses, especially schizophrenia [37][38][39][40][41]. For example, based on the analysis of the difficulties in MI, the researchers of the review [42] conclude that schizophrenia involves, as well, impairments of the posterior parietal cortex. Moreover, they present a novel hypothesis that suggests differential impairments of the left and right parietal cortices in schizophrenia, which may help explain many of the first-rank symptoms of the disorder. The study [43] revealed that patients with schizophrenia performed motor imagery of gait slower than healthy controls. This deficit could be in part explained by impaired executive function and specifically by a disturbance in the sensitivity to interference. The paper [44] showed that schizophrenia patients, similarly to nonclinical participants, overestimated tool-related benefits and underestimated tool-related effort in terms of time when they mentally simulated a task requiring the use of a tool. These results open new perspectives on the issue of effort in schizophrenia.
The work [45] investigated motor retardation in bipolar depression. FMRI showed that, during motor imagery, the patients activated the posterior medial parietal cortex, the posterior cingulate cortex, the premotor cortex, the prefrontal cortex, and the frontal poles more than the healthy controls did. In addition, limbic and prefrontal regions associated with self-reference and the default mode network were altered during motor imagery in bipolar depression with motor retardation. The study [46] investigated the influence of unipolar depression on MI ability using a pointing task. Compared to controls, depressed patients showed marked motor slowing on actual and imagined movements. More significant temporal discrepancies between actual and mental movements were observed in depressed patients than in healthy controls. Furthermore, depressed patients modulated, to some extent, mental movement durations according to the difficulty of the task, but this modulation was not as strong as that of healthy subjects. These results suggest that unipolar depression significantly affects the higher stages of action planning and points out a selective decline of motor prediction.
Reference [47] addressed action simulation processes in adolescents with Asperger syndrome (AS) using the following MI tasks: the classical hand laterality task and the mental rotation of letters. The authors demonstrated a specific alteration of motor imagery skills in AS—they found the biomechanical effect (the advantage for judging hand pictures showing physically comfortable versus physically awkward positions) in typically-developing participants but not in participants with AS.
Thus, motor imagery is a powerful and promising tool for research and diagnostics of various neurodegenerative disorders and psychoses, whose potential has not yet been fully realized.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/diagnostics12040949

References

  1. Jeannerod, M. Mental imagery in the motor context. Neuropsychologia 1995, 33, 1419–1932.
  2. Jeannerod, M. The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behav. Brain Sci. 2010, 17, 187–202.
  3. Grush, R. The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. Behav. Brain Sci. 2004, 27, 377–396.
  4. Hanakawa, T.; Immisch, I.; Toma, K.; Dimyan, M.A.; Van Gelderen, P.; Hallett, M. Functional properties of brain areas associated with motor execution and imagery. J. Neurophysiol. 2003, 89, 989–1002.
  5. Lafleur, M.F.; Jackson, P.L.; Malouin, F.; Richards, C.L.; Evans, A.C.; Doyon, J. Motor learning produces parallel dynamic functional changes during the execution and imagination of sequential foot movements. Neuroimage 2002, 16, 142–157.
  6. Guillot, A.; Collet, C.; Nguyen, V.A.; Malouin, F.; Richards, C.; Doyon, J. Brain activity during visual versus kinesthetic imagery: An fMRI study. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2009, 30, 2157–2172.
  7. Guillot, A.; Collet, C.; Nguyen, V.A.; Malouin, F.; Richards, C.; Doyon, J. Functional neuroanatomical networks associated with expertise in motor imagery. Neuroimage 2008, 41, 1471–1483.
  8. Nair, D.G.; Purcott, K.L.; Fuchs, A.; Steinberg, F.; Kelso, J.S. Cortical and cerebellar activity of the human brain during imagined and executed unimanual and bimanual action sequences: A functional MRI study. Cogn. Brain Res. 2003, 15, 250–260.
  9. Solodkin, A.; Hlustik, P.; Chen, E.E.; Small, S.L. Fine modulation in network activation during motor execution and motor imagery. Cereb. Cortex 2004, 14, 1246–1255.
  10. Kuhtz-Buschbeck, J.P.; Mahnkopf, C.; Holzknecht, C.; Siebner, H.; Ulmer, S.; Jansen, O. Effector-independent representations of simple and complex imagined finger movements: A combined fMRI and TMS study. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2003, 18, 3375–3387.
  11. Pelgrims, B.; Andres, M.; Olivier, E. Double dissociation between motor and visual imagery in the posterior parietal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 2009, 19, 2298–2307.
  12. Leonardo, M.; Fieldman, J.; Sadato, N.; Campbell, G.; Ibañez, V.; Cohen, L.; Deiber, M.P.; Jezzard, P.; Pons, T.; Turner, R.; et al. A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of cortical regions associated with motor task execution and motor ideation in humans. Hum. Brain Mapp. 1995, 3, 83–92.
  13. Gerardin, E.; Sirigu, A.; Lehéricy, S.; Poline, J.B.; Gaymard, B.; Marsault, C.; Agid, Y.; Le Bihan, D. Partially overlapping neural networks for real and imagined hand movements. Cereb. Cortex 2000, 10, 1093–1104.
  14. Decety, J. Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate? Cogn. Brain Res. 1996, 3, 87–93.
  15. Cramer, S.C.; Orr, E.L.; Cohen, M.J.; Lacourse, M.G. Effects of motor imagery training after chronic, complete spinal cord injury. Exp. Brain Res. 2007, 177, 233–242.
  16. Lacourse, M.G.; Orr, E.L.; Cramer, S.C.; Cohen, M.J. Brain activation during execution and motor imagery of novel and skilled sequential hand movements. Neuroimage 2005, 27, 505–519.
  17. Lotze, M.; Montoya, P.; Erb, M.; Hülsmann, E.; Flor, H.; Klose, U.; Birbaumer, N.; Grodd, W. Activation of cortical and cerebellar motor areas during executed and imagined hand movements: An fMRI study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1999, 11, 491–501.
  18. Porro, C.A.; Francescato, M.P.; Cettolo, V.; Diamond, M.E.; Baraldi, P.; Zuiani, C.; Bazzocchi, M.; Di Prampero, P.E. Primary motor and sensory cortex activation during motor performance and motor imagery: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J. Neurosci. 1996, 16, 7688–7698.
  19. Lang, W.; Cheyne, D.; Höllinger, P.; Gerschlager, W.; Lindinger, G. Electric and magnetic fields of the brain accompanying internal simulation of movement. Cogn. Brain Res. 1996, 3, 125–129.
  20. Roth, M.; Decety, J.; Raybaudi, M.; Massarelli, R.; Delon-Martin, C.; Segebarth, C.; Morand, S.; Gemignani, A.; Décorps, M.; Jeannerod, M. Possible involvement of primary motor cortex in mentally simulated movement: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroreport 1996, 7, 1280–1284.
  21. Dechent, P.; Merboldt, K.D.; Frahm, J. Is the human primary motor cortex involved in motor imagery? Cogn. Brain Res. 2004, 19, 138–144.
  22. Hardwick, R.M.; Caspers, S.; Eickhoff, S.B.; Swinnen, S.P. Neural correlates of action: Comparing meta-analyses of imagery, observation, and execution. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018, 94, 31–44.
  23. Galton, F. Mental Imagery. In Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development; MacMillan Co.: New York, NY, USA, 1883; pp. 83–114.
  24. Richardson, A.; Sheikh, A.A. Individual Differences in Imaging: Their Measurement, Origins, and Consequences; Routledge: London, UK, 2020.
  25. Anquetil, T.; Jeannerod, M. Simulated actions in the first and in the third person perspectives share common representations. Brain Res. 2007, 1130, 125–129.
  26. Smyth, M.M.; Waller, A. Movement imagery in rock climbing: Patterns of interference from visual, spatial and kinaesthetic secondary tasks. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 1998, 12, 145–157.
  27. Wassermann, E.; Epstein, C.; Ziemann, U.; Walsh, V. Oxford Handbook of Transcranial Stimulation; Oxford Library of Psychology, OUP Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2008.
  28. Mantovani, A.; Pavlicova, M.; Avery, D.; Nahas, Z.; McDonald, W.M.; Wajdik, C.D.; Holtzheimer, P.E., III; George, M.S.; Sackeim, H.A.; Lisanby, S.H. Long-term efficacy of repeated daily prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation (tms) in treatmnt-resistant depression. Depress. Anxiety 2012, 29, 883–890.
  29. Shindo, K.; Sugiyama, K.; Huabao, L.; Nishijima, K.; Kondo, T.; Izumi, S. Long-term effect of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the unaffected posterior parietal cortex in patients with unilateral spatial neglect. J. Rehabil. Med. 2006, 38, 65–67.
  30. Hayashi, T.; Ohnishi, T.; Okabe, S.; Teramoto, N.; Nonaka, Y.; Watabe, H.; Imabayashi, E.; Ohta, Y.; Jino, H.; Ejima, N.; et al. Long-term effect of motor cortical repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation induces. Ann. Neurol. 2004, 56, 77–85.
  31. Hramov, A.E.; Maksimenko, V.A.; Pisarchik, A.N. Physical principles of brain–computer interfaces and their applications for rehabilitation, robotics and control of human brain states. Phys. Rep. 2021, 918, 1–133.
  32. Hramov, A.E.; Grubov, V.; Badarin, A.; Maksimenko, V.A.; Pisarchik, A.N. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy for the classification of motor-related brain activity on the sensor-level. Sensors 2020, 20, 2362.
  33. Zimmermann-Schlatter, A.; Schuster, C.; Puhan, M.A.; Siekierka, E.; Steurer, J. Efficacy of motor imagery in post-stroke rehabilitation: A systematic review. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2008, 5, 1–10.
  34. Grigorev, N.A.; Savosenkov, A.O.; Lukoyanov, M.V.; Udoratina, A.; Shusharina, N.N.; Kaplan, A.Y.; Hramov, A.E.; Kazantsev, V.B.; Gordleeva, S. A BCI-based vibrotactile neurofeedback training improves motor cortical excitability during motor imagery. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2021, 29, 1583–1592.
  35. Mizuguchi, N.; Nakata, H.; Uchida, Y.; Kanosue, K. Motor imagery and sport performance. J. Phys. Fit. Sports Med. 2012, 1, 103–111.
  36. Ladda, A.M.; Lebon, F.; Lotze, M. Using motor imagery practice for improving motor performance—A review. Brain Cogn. 2021, 150, 105705.
  37. Abidi, M.; De Marco, G.; Grami, F.; Termoz, N.; Couillandre, A.; Querin, G.; Bede, P.; Pradat, P.F. Neural correlates of motor imagery of gait in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2021, 53, 223–233.
  38. Helmich, R.C.; de Lange, F.P.; Bloem, B.R.; Toni, I. Cerebral compensation during motor imagery in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45, 2201–2215.
  39. Lulé, D.; Diekmann, V.; Kassubek, J.; Kurt, A.; Birbaumer, N.; Ludolph, A.C.; Kraft, E. Cortical plasticity in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Motor imagery and function. Neurorehabil. Neural Repair 2007, 21, 518–526.
  40. Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Sang, L.; Li, P.; Yan, R.; Qiu, M.; Liu, C. Aging changes effective connectivity of motor networks during motor execution and motor imagery. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2019, 312.
  41. Hopulele-Petri, A.; Manea, M. Visual and motor functions in schizophrenia. Eur. Psychiatry 2017, 41, S198–S199.
  42. Danckert, J.; Saoud, M.; Maruff, P. Attention, motor control and motor imagery in schizophrenia: Implications for the role of the parietal cortex. Schizophr. Res. 2004, 70, 241–261.
  43. Lallart, E.; Jouvent, R.; Herrmann, F.R.; Beauchet, O.; Allali, G. Gait and motor imagery of gait in early schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2012, 198, 366–370.
  44. Décombe, A.; Brunel, L.; Murday, V.; Osiurak, F.; Capdevielle, D.; Raffard, S. Getting a tool gives wings even in schizophrenia: Underestimation of tool-related effort in a motor imagery task. NPJ Schizophr. 2021, 7, 1–8.
  45. Liberg, B.; Adler, M.; Jonsson, T.; Landén, M.; Rahm, C.; Wahlund, L.O.; Wiberg-Kristoffersen, M.; Wahlund, B. Motor imagery in bipolar depression with slowed movement. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 2013, 201, 885–893.
  46. Bennabi, D.; Monnin, J.; Haffen, E.; Carvalho, N.; Vandel, P.; Pozzo, T.; Papaxanthis, C. Motor imagery in unipolar major depression. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 413.
  47. Conson, M.; Mazzarella, E.; Frolli, A.; Esposito, D.; Marino, N.; Trojano, L.; Massagli, A.; Gison, G.; Aprea, N.; Grossi, D. Motor imagery in Asperger syndrome: Testing action simulation by the hand laterality task. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e70734.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback