Neural and Behavioral Outcomes Differ Following Equivalent Bouts of Motor Imagery or Physical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its reported effectiveness for the acquisition of motor skills, we know little about how motor imagery (MI)-based brain activation and performance evolves when MI (the imagined performance of a motor task) is used to learn a complex motor skill compared to physical practice (PP). The current study examined changes in MI-related brain activity and performance driven by an equivalent bout of MI- or PP-based training. Participants engaged in 5 days of either MI or PP of a dart-throwing task. Brain activity (via fMRI) and performance-related outcomes were obtained using a pre/post/retention design. Relative to PP, MI-based training did not drive robust changes in brain activation and was inferior for realizing improvements in performance: Greater activation in regions critical to refining the motor program was observed in the PP versus MI group posttraining, and relative to those driven via PP, MI led only to marginal improvements in performance. Findings indicate that the modality of practice (i.e., MI vs. PP) used to learn a complex motor skill manifests as differences in both resultant patterns of brain activity and performance. Ultimately, by directly comparing brain activity and behavioral outcomes after equivalent training through MI versus PP, this work provides unique knowledge regarding the neural mechanisms underlying learning through MI.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".