Does manipulating the time available to image executing a sensorimotor skill impact subsequent skill execution outcomes in a similar manner as manipulating execution time itself? Novice and skilled golfers performed a series of imaged golf putts followed by a series of actual golf putts under instructions that emphasized either speeded or nonspeeded imaging/putting execution. Novices putted less accurately (i.e., higher putting error score) following either putting or imagery instructions in which speed was stressed. Skilled golfers showed the opposite pattern. Although more time available to execute a skill enhances novice performance, this extra time harms the proceduralized skill of experts. Manipulating either actual execution time or imagined execution time produces this differential impact on novice and skilled performance outcomes. These results are discussed in terms of the functional equivalence between imagery and action and expertise differences in the attentional control structures governing complex sensorimotor skill execution.
AndersonJ. R. (1993). Rules of mindHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2.
BeilockS. L.AfremowJ. A.RabeA. L.CarrT. H. (2001). “Don't miss!” The debilitating effects of suppressive imagery on golf putting performance.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology23, 200–221.
3.
BeilockS. L.BertenthalB. I.McCoyA. M.CarrT. H. (2004). Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11, 373–379.
4.
BeilockS. L.CarrT. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General130, 701–725.
5.
BeilockS. L.CarrT. H.MacMahonC.StarkesJ. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied8, 6–16.
6.
BeilockS. L.HoltL. E. (2007). Embodied preference judgments: Can likeability be driven by the motor system?.Psychological Science18, 51–57.
7.
BrassM.BekkeringH.PrinzW. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task.Acta Psychologia106, 3–22.
8.
CalmelsC.HolmesP.LopezE.NamanV. (2006). Chronometric comparison of actual and imaged complex movement patterns.Journal of Motor Behavior38, 339–348.
9.
DecetyJ. (1996a). Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate?.Cognitive Brain Research3, 87–93.
10.
DecetyJ. (1996b). The neurophysiological basis of motor imagery.Behavioural Brain Research77, 45–52.
11.
DecetyJ.GrezesJ. (1999). Neural mechanisms subserving the perception of human actions.Trends in Cognitive Sciences3, 172–178.
12.
DecetyJ.MichelF. (1989). Comparative analysis of actual and mental movement times in two graphic tasks.Brain and Cognition11, 87–97.
13.
DecetyJ.PhilipponB.IngvarD. (1988). rCBF landscapes during motor performance and motor ideation of a graphic gesture.European Psychiatric Neurological Science238, 33–38.
14.
FeltzD. L.LandersD. M. (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and performance: A meta-analysis.Journal of Sport Psychology5, 25–57.
15.
FischerM. H. (2005). Action simulation for others is not constrained by one's own postures.Neuropsychologia43, 28–34.
16.
FittsP. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.Journal of Experimental Psychology47, 381–391.
17.
FittsP. M.PosnerM. I. (1967). Human performanceBelmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
18.
GalleseV.FadigaL.FogassiL.RizzolattiG. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex.Brain119, 593–609.
19.
GarbariniF.AdenzatoM. (2004). At the root of embodied cognition: Cognitive science meets neurophysiology.Brain and Cognition56, 100–106.
20.
GrayR. (2004). Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: Expertise differences, choking and slumps.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied10, 42–54.
21.
GuillotA.ColletC. (2005). Contribution from neurophysiological and psychological methods to the study of motor imagery.Brain Research Reviews50, 387–397.
22.
HallC.MartinK. A. (1997). Measuring movement imagery abilities: A revision of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire.Journal of Mental Imagery21, 143–154.
23.
HamiltonA. F. C.WolpertD. M.FrithU.GraftonS. T. (2006). Where does your own action influence your perception of another person's action in the brain?.NeuroImage29, 524–535.
24.
HoltL. E.BeilockS. L. (2006). Expertise and its embodiment: Examining the impact of sensorimotor skill expertise on the representation of action-related text.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review13, 694–701.
25.
JacksonR.AshfordK.NorsworthyG. (2006). Attentional focus, dispositional reinvestment, and skilled motor performance under pressure.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology28, 49–68.
26.
JeannerodM. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery.Behavioral and Brain Sciences17, 187–245.
27.
JeannerodM.FrakV. (1999). Mental imaging of motor activity in humans.Current Opinion in Neurobiology9, 735–739.
28.
KatoC.IsodaH.TakeharaY.MatsuoK.MoriyaT.NakaiT. (1999). Involvement of motor cortices in retrieval of kanji studied by functional MRI.Neuroreport10, 1335–1339.
29.
KeeleS. W.SummersJ. J. (1976). The structure of motor programs.Motor control: Issues and trends. StelmachG. E.New York: Academic.
30.
KilnerJ. M.PauliganY.BlakemoreS. J. (2003). An interference effect of observed biological movement on action.Current Biology13, 522–525.
31.
LafleurM. F.JacksonP. L.MalouinF.RichardsC. L.EvansA. C.DoyonJ. (2002). Motor learning produces parallel dynamic functional changes during the execution and imagination of sequential foot movements.NeuroImage16, 142–157.
32.
LotzeM.MontoyaP.ErbM.HulsmannE.FlorH.KloseU. (1999). Activation of cortical and cerebellar motor areas during executed and imagined hand movements: An fMRI study.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience11, 491–501.
33.
MacKayD. G. (1989). The organization of perception and actionNew York: Springer-Verlag.
34.
MaxwellJ. P.MastersR. S. W.EvesF. F. (2000). From novice to no know-how: A longitudinal study of implicit motor learning.Journal of Sport Sciences18, 111–120.
35.
MurphyS.NordinS. M.CummingJ. (in press). Imagery in sport, exercise and dance.Advances in sport and exercise psychology. (3).. HornT.Champagne, IL: Human Kinetics.
36.
ParsonsL. M. (1994). Temporal and kinematic properties of motor behavior reflected in mentally simulated action.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 709–730.
37.
PosnerM. I.SnyderC. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control.Information processing and cognition: Loyola Symposium. SolsoR. L.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38.
PrinzW. (1997). Perception and action planning.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology9, 129–154.
39.
PylyshynZ. W. (1986). Computational cognition: Toward a foundation for cognitive scienceCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
ReedC. L. (2002). Chronometric comparisons of imagery to action: Visualizing versus physically performing springboard dives.Memory and Cognition30, 1169–1178.
41.
SchmidtR. A.LeeT. D. (2005). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasisChampaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
42.
ShiffrinR. M.SchneiderW. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.Psychological Review84, 127–190.
43.
StevensJ. A. (2005). Interference effects demonstrate distinct roles for visual and motor imagery during the mental representation of human action.Cognition95, 329–350.
44.
TettamantiM.BuccinoG.SaccumanM. C.GalleseV.DannaM.ScifoP. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits.Journal of Cognitive Neurosciences17, 273–281.
45.
WilsonM. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review9, 625–636.
46.
WoodworthR. S. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movement.Psychological Review Monograph Supplement3.
47.
ZwaanR. A.TaylorL. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General135, 1–11.
