Effects of Practice, Visual Loss, Limb Amputation, and Disuse on Motor Imagery Vividness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to generate vivid images of movements is variable across individuals and likely influenced by sensorimotor inputs. OBJECTIVES: The authors examined (1) the vividness of motor imagery in dancers and in persons with late blindness, with amputation or an immobilization of one lower limb; (2) the effects of prosthesis use on motor imagery; and (3) the temporal characteristics of motor imagery. METHODS: Eleven dancers, 10 persons with late blindness, 14 with amputation, 6 with immobilization, and 2 groups of age-matched healthy individuals (27 in control group A; 35 in control group B) participated. The Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire served to assess motor imagery vividness. Temporal characteristics were assessed with mental chronometry. RESULTS: The late blindness group and dance group displayed higher imagery scores than respective control groups. In the amputation and immobilization groups, imagery scores were lower on the affected side than the intact side and specifically for imagined foot movements. Imagery scores of the affected limb positively correlated with the time since walking with prosthesis. Movement times during imagination and execution (amputation and immobilization) were longer on the affected side than the intact side, but the temporal congruence between real and imagined movement times was similar to that in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The mental representation of actions is highly modulated by imagery practice and motor activities. The ability to generate vivid images of movements can be specifically weakened by limb loss or disuse, but lack of movement does not affect the temporal characteristics of motor imagery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".