Abstract
The present study tested whether sport-specific implements facilitate motor imagery, whereas nonspecific implements disrupt motor imagery. We asked a group of basketball players (experts) and a group of healthy controls (novices) to physically perform (motor execution) and mentally simulate (motor imagery) basketball throws. Subjects produced motor imagery when they were holding a basketball, a volleyball, or nothing. Motor imagery performance was measured by temporal congruence, which is the correspondence between imagery and execution times estimated as (imagery time minus execution time) divided by (imagery time plus execution time), as well as the vividness of motor imagery. Results showed that experts produced greater temporal congruence and vividness of kinesthetic imagery while holding a basketball compared to when they were holding nothing, suggesting a facilitation effect from sport-specific implements. In contrast, experts produced lower temporal congruence and vividness of kinesthetic imagery while holding a volleyball compared to when they were holding nothing, suggesting the interference effect of nonspecific implements. Furthermore, we found a negative correlation between temporal congruence and the vividness of kinesthetic imagery in experts while holding a basketball. On the contrary, the implement manipulation did not modulate the temporal congruence of novices. Our findings suggest that motor representation in experts is built on motor experience associated with specific-implement use and thus was subjected to modulation of the implement held. We conclude that sport-specific implements facilitate motor imagery, whereas nonspecific implements could disrupt motor representation in experts.
Highlights
Motor imagery is defined as the mental representation of movement with no concomitant production of muscular activity (Jeannerod, 2001)
We examined the potential facilitation effect from the sport-specific implement by comparing motor imagery performance of basketball throw when subjects held a basketball (HB) to that of when they held nothing (HN); we examined the potential interference effect from a nonspecific implement by comparing motor imagery performance of basketball throw when subjects held a volleyball (HV) to that of when they held nothing (HN)
Post hoc t -tests with Bonferroni correction confirmed that experts showed greater temporal congruence in all experimental conditions compared to novices
Summary
Motor imagery is defined as the mental representation of movement with no concomitant production of muscular activity (Jeannerod, 2001). Temporal congruence is affected by a series of factors including imagery speed (Decety & Jeannerod, 1995; O & Hall, 2009; Guillot et al, 2012), expertise level (Reed, 2002; Louis, Collet & Guillot, 2011; Guillot et al, 2012), environmental context (Holmes & Collins, 2001; Guillot, Collet & Dittmar, 2005; Guillot & Collet, 2008), and so forth
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
