Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The literature suggests a beneficial effect of motor imagery (MI) if combined with physical practice, but detailed descriptions of MI training session (MITS) elements and temporal parameters are lacking. The aim of this review was to...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Scheidhauer Anne, Amft Oliver, Hilfiker Roger, Schuster Corina, Andrews Brian, Butler Jenny, Kischka Udo, Ettlin Thierry
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-06-01
Series:BMC Medicine
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/75
id doaj-a16927f8c90645f0be4e6269ab6e1401
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a16927f8c90645f0be4e6269ab6e14012020-11-24T23:39:29ZengBMCBMC Medicine1741-70152011-06-01917510.1186/1741-7015-9-75Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplinesScheidhauer AnneAmft OliverHilfiker RogerSchuster CorinaAndrews BrianButler JennyKischka UdoEttlin Thierry<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The literature suggests a beneficial effect of motor imagery (MI) if combined with physical practice, but detailed descriptions of MI training session (MITS) elements and temporal parameters are lacking. The aim of this review was to identify the characteristics of a successful MITS and compare these for different disciplines, MI session types, task focus, age, gender and MI modification during intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An extended systematic literature search using 24 databases was performed for five disciplines: Education, Medicine, Music, Psychology and Sports. References that described an MI intervention that focused on motor skills, performance or strength improvement were included. Information describing 17 MITS elements was extracted based on the PETTLEP (physical, environment, timing, task, learning, emotion, perspective) approach. Seven elements describing the MITS temporal parameters were calculated: study duration, intervention duration, MITS duration, total MITS count, MITS per week, MI trials per MITS and total MI training time.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both independent reviewers found 96% congruity, which was tested on a random sample of 20% of all references. After selection, 133 studies reporting 141 MI interventions were included. The locations of the MITS and position of the participants during MI were task-specific. Participants received acoustic detailed MI instructions, which were mostly standardised and live. During MI practice, participants kept their eyes closed. MI training was performed from an internal perspective with a kinaesthetic mode. Changes in MI content, duration and dosage were reported in 31 MI interventions. Familiarisation sessions before the start of the MI intervention were mentioned in 17 reports. MI interventions focused with decreasing relevance on motor-, cognitive- and strength-focused tasks. Average study intervention lasted 34 days, with participants practicing MI on average three times per week for 17 minutes, with 34 MI trials. Average total MI time was 178 minutes including 13 MITS. Reporting rate varied between 25.5% and 95.5%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>MITS elements of successful interventions were individual, supervised and non-directed sessions, added after physical practice. Successful design characteristics were dominant in the Psychology literature, in interventions focusing on motor and strength-related tasks, in interventions with participants aged 20 to 29 years old, and in MI interventions including participants of both genders. Systematic searching of the MI literature was constrained by the lack of a defined MeSH term.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/75
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Scheidhauer Anne
Amft Oliver
Hilfiker Roger
Schuster Corina
Andrews Brian
Butler Jenny
Kischka Udo
Ettlin Thierry
spellingShingle Scheidhauer Anne
Amft Oliver
Hilfiker Roger
Schuster Corina
Andrews Brian
Butler Jenny
Kischka Udo
Ettlin Thierry
Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines
BMC Medicine
author_facet Scheidhauer Anne
Amft Oliver
Hilfiker Roger
Schuster Corina
Andrews Brian
Butler Jenny
Kischka Udo
Ettlin Thierry
author_sort Scheidhauer Anne
title Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines
title_short Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines
title_full Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines
title_fullStr Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines
title_full_unstemmed Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines
title_sort best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines
publisher BMC
series BMC Medicine
issn 1741-7015
publishDate 2011-06-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The literature suggests a beneficial effect of motor imagery (MI) if combined with physical practice, but detailed descriptions of MI training session (MITS) elements and temporal parameters are lacking. The aim of this review was to identify the characteristics of a successful MITS and compare these for different disciplines, MI session types, task focus, age, gender and MI modification during intervention.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An extended systematic literature search using 24 databases was performed for five disciplines: Education, Medicine, Music, Psychology and Sports. References that described an MI intervention that focused on motor skills, performance or strength improvement were included. Information describing 17 MITS elements was extracted based on the PETTLEP (physical, environment, timing, task, learning, emotion, perspective) approach. Seven elements describing the MITS temporal parameters were calculated: study duration, intervention duration, MITS duration, total MITS count, MITS per week, MI trials per MITS and total MI training time.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both independent reviewers found 96% congruity, which was tested on a random sample of 20% of all references. After selection, 133 studies reporting 141 MI interventions were included. The locations of the MITS and position of the participants during MI were task-specific. Participants received acoustic detailed MI instructions, which were mostly standardised and live. During MI practice, participants kept their eyes closed. MI training was performed from an internal perspective with a kinaesthetic mode. Changes in MI content, duration and dosage were reported in 31 MI interventions. Familiarisation sessions before the start of the MI intervention were mentioned in 17 reports. MI interventions focused with decreasing relevance on motor-, cognitive- and strength-focused tasks. Average study intervention lasted 34 days, with participants practicing MI on average three times per week for 17 minutes, with 34 MI trials. Average total MI time was 178 minutes including 13 MITS. Reporting rate varied between 25.5% and 95.5%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>MITS elements of successful interventions were individual, supervised and non-directed sessions, added after physical practice. Successful design characteristics were dominant in the Psychology literature, in interventions focusing on motor and strength-related tasks, in interventions with participants aged 20 to 29 years old, and in MI interventions including participants of both genders. Systematic searching of the MI literature was constrained by the lack of a defined MeSH term.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/9/75
work_keys_str_mv AT scheidhaueranne bestpracticeformotorimageryasystematicliteraturereviewonmotorimagerytrainingelementsinfivedifferentdisciplines
AT amftoliver bestpracticeformotorimageryasystematicliteraturereviewonmotorimagerytrainingelementsinfivedifferentdisciplines
AT hilfikerroger bestpracticeformotorimageryasystematicliteraturereviewonmotorimagerytrainingelementsinfivedifferentdisciplines
AT schustercorina bestpracticeformotorimageryasystematicliteraturereviewonmotorimagerytrainingelementsinfivedifferentdisciplines
AT andrewsbrian bestpracticeformotorimageryasystematicliteraturereviewonmotorimagerytrainingelementsinfivedifferentdisciplines
AT butlerjenny bestpracticeformotorimageryasystematicliteraturereviewonmotorimagerytrainingelementsinfivedifferentdisciplines
AT kischkaudo bestpracticeformotorimageryasystematicliteraturereviewonmotorimagerytrainingelementsinfivedifferentdisciplines
AT ettlinthierry bestpracticeformotorimageryasystematicliteraturereviewonmotorimagerytrainingelementsinfivedifferentdisciplines
_version_ 1725513283381755904