The present study was conducted to test the hypothesis that response programming occurs when movements are only imagined. 12 subjects were required to react and produce the sequence of same or different force by squeezing a handle as quickly and accurately as possible after the two reaction signals which were separated by the interstimulus interval of 1 sec. The reaction time to initiate the second response was examined when the first response is covertly performed, but the second response is actually performed. The reaction times to initiate the second responses were significantly shorter for imagining and actually performing different movements or the control condition. There was no significant difference in reaction time between the conditions with the same movements. These findings were interpreted as evidence for functional equivalence for response programming of actually performing versus imagining movements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A.DijkstraS. (1966) Short-term memory for motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 314–318.
2.
AnsonJ. G. (1982) Memory drum theory: Alternative tests and explanations for the complexity effects on simple reaction time. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14, 228–246.
3.
BrinkmanC. (1984) Supplementary motor area of the monkey's cerebral cortex: Short- and long-term deficits after unilateral ablation and the effects of subsequent callosal section. Journal of Neuroscience, 4, 918–929.
4.
CanicM. J.FranksI. M. (1989) Response preparation and latency in patterns of tapping movements. Human Movement Science, 8, 123–139.
5.
ChristinaR. W.RoseD. J. (1985) Premotor and motor time as a function of response complexity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 307–315.
6.
DeeckeL.ScheidP.KornhuberH. H. (1969) Distribution of readiness potential, pre-motion positivity, and motor potential of the human cerebral cortex preceding voluntary finger movements. Experimental Brain Research, 7, 158–168.
7.
FeltzD. L.LandersD. M. (1983) The effects of mental practice on motor skill learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 25–57.
8.
FischmanM. G. (1984) Programming time as a function of number of movement parts and changes in movement direction. Journal of Motor Behavior, 16, 405–423.
9.
GouldD.WeinbergR.JacksonA. (1980) Mental preparation strategies, cognitions, and strength performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 329–339.
10.
HaleB. D. (1982) The effects of internal and external imagery on muscular and ocular concomitants. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 379–387.
11.
HarrisD. V.RobinsonW. J. (1986) The effects of skill level on EMG activity during internal and external imagery. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 105–111.
12.
HenryF. M.RogersD. E. (1960) Increased response latency for complicated movements and a “memory drum” theory of neuromotor reactions. Research Quarterly, 31, 448–458.
13.
ItoM. (1991) Short-term retention of a constructed motor program. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 339–347.
14.
ItoM. (1995) Does psychological refractoriness depend on the similarity of the required responses?Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 195–207.
15.
ItoM. (1997) Effects of the similarity of the required responses on fractionated reaction time. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 159–168.
16.
JacobsonE. (1932) Electrophysiology of mental activities. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 677–694.
17.
JeannerodM. (1994) The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 187–245.
18.
KeeleS. W. (1968) Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387–403.
19.
KlappS. T. (1980) The memory drum theory after twenty years: Comments on Henry's note. Journal of Motor Behavior, 12, 169–171.
20.
KlappS. T. (1996) Reaction time analysis of central motor control. In ZelaznikH. N. (Ed.), Advances in motor learning and control. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Pp. 13–36.
21.
KlappS. T.WyattE. P. (1976) Motor programming within a sequence of responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 27–34.
22.
KohlR. M.RoenkerD. L. (1983) Mechanism involvement during skill imagery. Journal of Motor Behavior, 15, 179–190.
23.
KosslynS. M. (1975) Information representation in visual images. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 341–370.
24.
MahoneyM. J.AvenerM. (1977) Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 135–141.
25.
PepperR. L.HermanL. M. (1970) Decay and interference effects in the short-term retention of a discrete motor act. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 83, 1–18.
26.
RolandP. E.LarsenB.LassenN. A.SkinhojE. (1980) Supplementary motor area and other cortical areas in organization of voluntary movements in man. Journal of Neurophysiology, 43, 118–136.
27.
RosenbaumD. A. (1990) On choosing between movement sequences: Comments on Rose (1988). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 439–444.
28.
SandersA. E. (1998) Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
SchmidtR. A. (1988) Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. (2nd ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
30.
SemjenA.Garcia-ColeraA. (1986) Planning and timing of finger-tapping sequences with a stressed element. Journal of Motor Behavior, 18, 287–322.
31.
ShawW. (1938) The distribution of muscular action potentials during imaging. The Psychological Record, 2, 195–216.
32.
SiegelD. (1988) Fractionated reaction time and the rate of force development. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 545–560.
33.
SternbergS.MonsellS.KnollR. L.WrightC. E. (1978) The latency and duration of rapid movement sequences: Comparisons of speech and typewriting. In StelmachG. E. (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 117–152.
34.
UlichE. (1967) Some experiments on the functions of mental practice training in the acquisition of motor skills. Ergonomics, 10, 411–419.
35.
ZelaznikH. N.HahnR. (1985) Reaction time methods in the study of motor programming. Journal of Motor Behavior, 17, 190–218.
