ABSTRACT
Combined action observation and motor imagery (AO + MI) can improve movement execution (ME) in healthy adults and certain patient populations. However, it is unclear how the specificity of the observation component during AO + MI influences ME. As generalised observation could result in more flexible AO + MI rehabilitation programmes, this study investigated whether observing typing of target words (specific condition) or non-matching words (general condition) during AO + MI would have different effects on keyboard typing in healthy young adults. In Experiment 1, 51 students imagined typing a target word while watching typing videos that were either specific to the target word or general. There were no differences in typing execution between AO + MI conditions, though participants typed more slowly after both AO + MI conditions compared with no observation or imagery. Experiment 2 repeated Experiment 1 in 20 students, but with a faster stimulus speed in the AO + MI conditions and increased cognitive difficulty in the control condition. The results showed that the slowed typing after AO + MI was likely due to a strong influence of task-switching between imagery and execution, as well as an automatic imitation effect. Both experiments demonstrate that general and specific AO + MI comparably affect ME. In addition, slower ME following both AO + MI and a challenging cognitive task provides support for the motor-cognitive model of MI.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Motor Imagery (MI) is when an individual imagines performing an action without physically executing that action and is thought to involve similar neural processes used for execution of physical movement. As motor coordination difficulties are common in autistic individuals it is possible that these may affect MI ability. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the current knowledge around MI ability in autistic individuals. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for articles published before September 2023, following PRISMA guidance. Search engines were PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley Online Library and PsyArXiv. Inclusion criteria included: (a) Original peer-reviewed and pre-print publications; (b) Autistic and a non-autistic group (c) Implicit or explicit imagery tasks (d) Behavioral, neurophysiological or self-rating measures, (e) Written in the English language. Exclusion criteria were (a) Articles only about MI or autism (b) Articles where the autism data is not presented separately (c) Articles on action observation, recognition or imitation only (d) Review articles. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was conducted. Results: Sixteen studies across fourteen articles were included. Tasks were divided into implicit (unconscious) or explicit (conscious) MI. The implicit tasks used either hand (6) or body (4) rotation tasks. Explicit tasks consisted of perspective taking tasks (3), a questionnaire (1) and explicit instructions to imagine performing a movement (2). A MI strategy was apparent for the hand rotation task in autistic children, although may have been more challenging. Evidence was mixed and inconclusive for the remaining task types due to the varied range of different tasks and, measures conducted and design limitations. Further limitations included a sex bias toward males and the hand rotation task only being conducted in children. Discussion: There is currently an incomplete understanding of MI ability in autistic individuals. The field would benefit from a battery of fully described implicit and explicit MI tasks, conducted across the same groups of autistic children and adults. Improved knowledge around MI in autistic individuals is important for understanding whether MI techniques may benefit motor coordination in some autistic people.