During motor imagery, global inhibition and effector-specific inhibition contribute to prevent actual movements. We investigated the decay of inhibition using an action-mode switching paradigm. Participants switched between imagined and executed hand movements. Response–stimulus intervals (RSIs) were varied (200, 700, 1,300, and 2,000 ms). As inhibition (due to imagination) or activation (due to execution) in one trial affects performance in the subsequent trial, we analysed sequential effects. Evidence for the contribution of global inhibition (e.g., switch benefits in execution [E]—imagination [I] sequences compared with I-I sequences) and effector-specific inhibition (e.g., hand repetition costs after an imagination trial) was observed. Sequential effects decreased with increasing RSIs, indicating that both forms of inhibition are subject to decay. However, the decrease of sequential effects was less pronounced for global inhibition than for effector-specific inhibition. This indicates that global inhibition may decay slowly, whereas effector-specific inhibition decays rather quickly. In conclusion, global inhibition may be at least partly implemented in all contexts in which motor imagery has to be performed, whereas effector-specific inhibition may contribute to motor imagery only as soon as the exact movement parameters are known and may decay quickly after the imagined movement has been performed.
AdamJ. J.KochI. (2014). Response-repetition effects depend on motor set: Evidence for anatomical coding in response selection. Human Movement Science, 33, 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2013.09.001
2.
AllportD. A.StylesE. A.HsiehS. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In UmiltaC.MoscovitchM. (Eds.), Attention & performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). The MIT Press.
3.
AltmannE. M. (2005). Repetition priming in task switching: Do the benefits dissipate?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 535–540. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193801
4.
AndersonJ. R.LebiereC. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BartV. K. E.KochI.RiegerM. (2020). Inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery: Disentangling different forms of inhibition using action mode switching. Psychological Research. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01327-y
6.
BertelsonP. (1965). Serial choice reaction-time as a function of response versus signal-and-response repetition. Nature, 206, 217–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/206217a0
7.
BertelsonP.RenkinA. (1966). Reaction times to new versus repeated signals in a serial task as a function of response-signal time interval. Acta Psychologica, 25, 132–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(66)90007-2
8.
BratzkeD.RolkeB.UlrichR. (2009). The source of execution-related dual-task interference: Motor bottleneck or response monitoring?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1413–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015874
9.
CoxonJ. P.StinearC. M.ByblowW. D. (2007). Selective inhibition of movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97(3), 2480–2489. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01284.2006
DahmS. F.RiegerM. (2016b). Is there symmetry in motor imagery? Exploring different versions of the mental chronometry paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 786(6), 1794–1805. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-016-1112-9
12.
DanevS. G.De WinterC. R.WartnaG. F. (1971). On the relation between reaction and motion time in a choice reaction task. Acta Psychologica, 35(3), 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(71)90020-5
DuthooW.De BaeneW.WührP.NotebaertW. (2012). When predictions take control: The effect of task predictions on task switching performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00282
15.
EgnerT.ElyS.GrinbandJ. (2010). Going, going, gone: Characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00154
16.
ElchleppH.LavricA.ChambersC. D.VerbruggenF. (2016). Proactive inhibitory control: A general biasing account. Cognitive Psychology, 86, 27–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.01.004
17.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
18.
FringsC.HommelB.KochI.RothermundK.DignathD.GiesenC.. . . PhilippA. (2020). Binding and Retrieval in Action Control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Science, 24(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.004
GuillotA.ColletC. (2005). Duration of mentally simulated movement: A review. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.3200/jmbr.37.1.10-20
21.
GuillotA.Di RienzoF.MacIntyreT.MoranA.ColletC. (2012). Imagining is not doing but involves specific motor commands: A review of experimental data related to motor inhibition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00247
22.
GuillotA.HoyekN.LouisM.ColletC. (2012). Understanding the timing of motor imagery: Recent findings and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2011.623787
23.
HasherL.ZacksR. T.StoltzfusE. R.KaneM. J.ConnellyS. L. (1996). On the time course of negative priming: Another look. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(2), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03212424
24.
HommelB. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/713756773
HoroufchinH.PhilippA. M.KochI. (2011). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020557
27.
HowellM. L. (1953). Influence of emotional tension on speed of reaction and movement. Research Quarterly. American Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 24(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10671188.1953.10624892
28.
HsiehS. L. (2012). Two decades of research on task switching: What more can we ask?Chinese Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 67–93.
29.
JeannerodM. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 187–245. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00034026
JeannerodM. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage, 14(1). 103–109.https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0832
KieselA.SteinhauserM.WendtM.FalkensteinM.JostK.PhilippA. M.KochI. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842
34.
KirbyN. H. (1976). Sequential effects in two-choice reaction time: Automatic facilitation or subjective expectancy?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.2.4.567
35.
KochI. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1474–1486. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.6.1474
KochI.PoljacE.MüllerH.KieselA. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000144
38.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
39.
Marí-BeffaP.CooperS.HoughtonG. (2012). Unmixing the mixing cost: Contributions from dimensional relevance and stimulus-response suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 478–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025979
40.
MaslovatD.ChuaR.SpencerH. C.ForgaardC. J.CarlsenA. N.FranksI. M. (2013). Evidence for a response preparation bottleneck during dual-task performance: Effect of a startling acoustic stimulus on the psychological refractory period. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.08.005
MonsellS. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.
43.
MunzertJ.LoreyB.ZentgrafK. (2009). Cognitive motor processes: The role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain Research Reviews, 60(2), 306–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.12.024
44.
NeillW. T.ValdesL. A. (1992). Persistence of negative priming: Steady state or decay?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(3), 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.3.565
45.
NeillW. T.ValdesL. A.TerryK. M.GorfeinD. S. (1992). Persistence of negative priming: II. Evidence for episodic trace retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 993–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.993
46.
NeillW. T.WestberryR. L. (1987). Selective attention and the suppression of cognitive noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13(2), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.327
O’SheaH.MoranA. (2017). Does motor simulation theory explain the cognitive mechanisms underlying motor imagery? A critical review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00072
49.
O’SheaH.MoranA. (2018). To go or not to go? Pupillometry elucidates inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 466–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2018.1461104
50.
PapaxanthisC.PozzoT.KasprinskiR.BerthozA. (2003). Comparison of actual and imagined execution of whole-body movements after a long exposure to microgravity. Neuroscience Letters, 339(1), 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3940(02)01472-6
RabbittP. (1969). Psychological refractory delay and response-stimulus interval duration in serial, choice-response tasks. Acta Psychologica, 30, 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(69)90051-1
53.
RiegerM.DahmS. F.KochI. (2017). Inhibition in motor imagery: A novel action mode switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(2), 459–466. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1095-5
54.
ScheilJ.LiefoogheB. (2018). Motor command inhibition and the representation of response mode during motor imagery. Acta Psychologica, 186, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.04.008
55.
SoetensE. (1998). Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2), 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.24.2.547
56.
SoetensE.BoerL. C.HuetingJ. E. (1985). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 598–516. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.11.5.598
57.
SolomonJ. P.KraeutnerS. N.BardouilleT.BoeS. G. (2019). Probing the temporal dynamics of movement inhibition in motor imagery. Brain Research, 1720, 146310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2019.146310
58.
StoetG.HommelB. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(6), 1625–1640. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.6.1625
59.
TipperS. P.WeaverB.CameronS.BrehautJ. C.BastedoJ. (1991). Inhibitory mechanisms of attention in identification and localization tasks: Time course and disruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(4), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.17.4.681
60.
WelfordA. T. (1952). The “psychological refractory period” and the timing of high—speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 2–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x
61.
WührP.AnsorgeU. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(4), 705–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000269
62.
WührP.HeuerH. (2015). The coding of repetitions and alternations in action sequences: Spatial or relational?Psychological Research, 79(3), 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0579-z
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
