Abstract
AbstractBach (Psychological Research 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01773-w) offer a re-conceptualisation of motor imagery, influenced by older ideas of ideomotor action and formulated in terms of action effects rather than motor output. We share the view of an essential role of action effect in action planning and motor imagery processes, but we challenge the claim that motor imagery is non-motoric in nature. In the present article, we critically review some of Bach et al.’s proposed ideas and pose questions of whether effect and motor processes are functionally separable, and if not, what mechanisms underlie motor imagery and what terminology best captures its function.
Funder
University College Dublin
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference20 articles.
1. Ames, K. C., Ryu, S. I., & Shenoy, K. V. (2019). Simultaneous motor preparation and execution in a last-moment reach correction task. Nature Communications, 10(1), 2718. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10772-2
2. Bach, P., Frank, C., & Kunde, W. (2022). Why motor imagery is not really motoric: Towards a re-conceptualization in terms of effect-based action control. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01773-w
3. Carpenter, W. B. (1852). On the influence of suggestion in modifying and directing muscular movement, independently of volition. Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. pp. 147–154.
4. Churchland, M. M., Cunningham, J. P., Kaufman, M. T., Ryu, S. I., & Shenoy, K. V. (2010). Cortical preparatory activity: Representation of movement or first cog in a dynamical machine? Neuron, 68(3), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.09.015
5. Glover, S., & Baran, M. (2017). The motor-cognitive model of motor imagery: Evidence from timing errors in simulated reaching and grasping. Journal of experimental psychology Human perception and performance., 43(7), 1359–1375. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000389