Effects of a single session of motor imagery and action observation plus physical exercise on lumbo-pelvic sensorimotor function in healthy women: a randomized controlled pilot trial-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Effects of a single session of motor imagery and action observation plus physical exercise on lumbo-pelvic sensorimotor function in healthy women: a randomized controlled pilot trial

Published:2024-01-01 Issue:1 Volume:19 Page:
ISSN:2194-637X
Container-title:Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Nieves-Gómez Alba¹,Millán-Isasi Natalia¹,Lara-Bolinches Amelia¹,Marcos-Hernández Lucía¹,Fuentes-Aparicio Laura²^ORCID,Cuenca-Martínez Ferran¹^ORCID,Sempere-Rubio Núria¹^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Physiotherapy , 16781 University of Valencia , Valencia , Spain

2. Physiotherapy in Motion Multispecialty Research Group (PTinMOTION), Department of Physiotherapy , University of Valencia , Valencia , Spain

Abstract

Abstract Objectives The main aim of this study was to assess the effects of a single session motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) plus physical exercise (PE) on lumbo-pelvic sensorimotor function. Methods Thirty-six healthy women were randomized into three groups: MI (n=12), AO (n=12), or sham observation (SO) group (n=12). All the groups performed PE consisting of a combination of aerobic and strengthening exercises. The outcome measures included lumbo-pelvic motor control, pressure pain threshold (PPT) in lumbar and tibialis anterior region, and pelvic floor muscle (PFM) strength. A pre- and post-intervention evaluation was conducted. Results Regarding the lumbo-pelvic motor control, only the AO group showed significant within-group differences with a moderate effect size (mean difference (MD)=−3.55 mmHg (−6.6 to −0.5), p=0.023, d=−0.56). With respect to the PPT in the lumbar region, only the MI group showed significant within-group differences with a small effect size (MD=0.775 kg/cm2 (0.35–1.2), p=0.001, d=0.44). No statistically significant PFM strength gain was found (p>0.05). Finally, no between-group differences were found (p>0.05). Conclusions MI and AO training plus PE had a slight impact on lumbo-pelvic sensorimotor function such as motor control or local pain sensitivity when applied in a single session.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Link

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jirspa-2024-0018/pdf

Reference47 articles.

1. Decety, J. The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery. Behav Brain Res 1996;77:45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(95)00225-1.

2. Hardwick, RM, Caspers, S, Eickhoff, SB, Swinnen, SP. Neural correlates of action: comparing meta-analyses of imagery, observation, and execution. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2018;94:31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.08.003.

3. Lebon, F, Byblow, WD, Collet, C, Guillot, A, Stinear, CM. The modulation of motor cortex excitability during motor imagery depends on imagery quality. Eur J Neurosci 2012;35:323–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07938.x.

4. Sakamoto, M, Muraoka, T, Mizuguchi, N, Kanosue, K. Combining observation and imagery of an action enhances human corticospinal excitability. Neurosci Res 2009;65:23–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neures.2009.05.003.

5. Taube, W, Mouthon, M, Leukel, C, Hoogewoud, H-M, Annoni, J-M, Keller, M. Brain activity during observation and motor imagery of different balance tasks: an fMRI study. Cortex 2015;64:102–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.09.022.