The Acute Effects of Motor Imagery Combined With Action Observation Breathing Exercise on Cardiorespiratory Responses, Brain Activity, and Cognition: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breath and brain activity have been integral to daily life since time immemorial. Cognition and cardiorespiratory responses are closely interlinked, necessitating further investigation into their dynamics. The potential benefits of combining motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) based breathing exercises in rehabilitation have not been fully explored. This study was aimed at assessing the acute effects of MI combined with AO on cognitive function and cardiorespiratory responses. Thirty‐three healthy adults were randomized into MI combined with AO breathing (MI+AO), active respiratory exercise (ARE), and control groups, with equal distribution across groups. Electroencephalography (EEG) data were collected using a Muse EEG headband, and cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) while imagining activities were measured via the Kinesthetic and Visual Imagery Questionnaire (KVIQ). Significant improvements in the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and systolic blood pressure were observed in the ARE group ( p < 0.05), alongside improvements in MoCA and KVIQ scores ( p < 0.05). EEG data revealed significant decreases in delta and theta power at the temporoparietal (TP) location in the ARE group ( p < 0.05). These findings suggest that MI and AO, when combined with respiratory exercises, may serve as effective passive strategies to support cognition and cardiorespiratory function, particularly in individuals who struggle to actively participate in pulmonary rehabilitation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06099483
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".