Abstract
The recent review by Eaves et al. (Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 2022) outlines the research conducted to-date on combined action-observation and motor imagery (AOMI), and more specifically, its added benefit to learning. Of interest, these findings have been primarily attributed to the dual action simulation hypothesis, whereby AO and MI activate separable representations for action that may be later merged when they are congruent with one another. The present commentary more closely evaluates this explanation. What’s more, we offer an alternative information-based argument where the benefit to learning may be served instead by the availability of key information. Along these lines, we speculate on possible future directions including the need for a transfer design.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Azaad, S., & Sebanz, N. (2023). Potential benefits of synchronous action observation and motor imagery: a commentary on Eaves et al. 2022. Psychological Research, 1–3.
Bird, G., & Heyes, C. (2005). Effector-dependent learning by observation of a finger movement sequence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(2), 262.
Boutin, A., Fries, U., Panzer, S., Shea, C. H., & Blandin, Y. (2010). Role of action observation and action in sequence learning and coding. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 240–251.
Bruton, A. M., Holmes, P. S., Eaves, D. L., Franklin, Z. C., & Wright, D. J. (2020). Neurophysiological markers discriminate different forms of motor imagery during action observation. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 124, 119–136.
Cisek, P., & Kalaska, J. F. (2010). Neural mechanisms for interacting with a world full of action choices. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33, 269–298.
Deakin, J. M., & Proteau, L. (2000). The role of scheduling in learning through observation. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(3), 268–276.
Eaves, D. L., Riach, M., Holmes, P. S., & Wright, D. J. (2016). Motor imagery during action observation: A brief review of evidence, theory and future research opportunities. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10, 514.
Eaves, D. L., Hodges, N. J., Buckingham, G., Buccino, G., & Vogt, S. (2022). Enhancing motor imagery practice using synchronous action observation. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 1–17.
Frank, C., Wright, D. J., & Holmes, P. S. (2020). Mental simulation and neurocognition: Advances for motor imagery and action observation training in sport. In D. Hackfort & R. J. Schinke (Eds.), Routledge international encyclopedia of sport and exercise psychology. Volume 2: Applied and practical measures (pp. 411–428). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315187228.
Georgopoulos, A. P., Schwartz, A. B., & Kettner, R. E. (1986). Neuronal population coding of movement direction. Science, 233(4771), 1416–1419.
Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(2), 212–224.
Hayes, S. J., Andrew, M., Elliott, D., Roberts, J. W., & Bennet, S. J. (2012a). Dissociable contributions of motor-execution and action-observation to intermanual transfer. Neuroscience Letters, 506(2), 346–350.
Hayes, S. J., Elliott, D., Andrew, M., Roberts, J. W., & Bennet, S. J. (2012b). Dissociable contributions of motor-execution and action-observation to intramanual transfer. Experimental Brain Research, 221, 459–466.
Heyes, C. M., & Foster, C. L. (2002). Motor learning by observation: Evidence from a serial reaction time task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 55(2), 593–607.
Kim, T., Frank, C., & Schack, T. (2020). The effect of alternate training of action observation and motor imagery on cognitive and skill performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 51(2), 101–121.
Mackrous, I., & Proteau, L. (2007). Specificity of practice results from differences in movement planning strategies. Experimental Brain Research, 183, 181–193.
Marshall, B., Wright, D. J., Holmes, P. S., & Wood, G. (2020). Combining action observation and motor imagery improves eye-hand coordination during novel visuomotor performance. Journal of Motor Behavior, 52(3), 333–341.
Meers, R., Nuttall, H. E., & Vogt, S. (2020). Motor imagery alone drives corticospinal excitability during concurrent action observation and motor imagery. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 126, 322–333.
Osman, M., Bird, G., & Heyes, C. (2005). Action observation supports effector-dependent learning of finger movement sequences. Experimental Brain Research, 165, 19–27.
Romano-Smith, S. R., Wood, G., Coyles, G., Roberts, J. W., & Wakefield, C. J. (2019). The effect of action observation and motor imagery combinations on upper limb kinematics and EMG during dart-throwing. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 29(12), 1917–1929.
Romano-Smith, S., Roberts, J. W., Wood, G., Coyles, G., & Wakefield, C. J. (2022). Simultaneous and alternate combinations of action-observation and motor imagery involve a common lower-level sensorimotor process. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 63, 102275.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82(4), 225.
Shea, C. H., Wright, D. L., Wulf, G., & Whitacre, C. (2000). Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities. Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(1), 27–36.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315.
Trempe, M., Sabourin, M., Rohbanfard, H., & Proteau, L. (2011). Observation learning versus physical practice leads to different consolidation outcomes in a movement timing task. Experimental Brain Research, 209, 181–192.
Wolpert, D. M., & Ghahramani, Z. (2000). Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 3(11), 1212–1217.
Wright, D. J., Wood, G., Eaves, D. L., Bruton, A. M., Frank, C., & Franklin, Z. C. (2018). Corticospinal excitability is facilitated by combined action observation and motor imagery of a basketball free throw. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 39, 114–121.
Funding
No funding was associated with this commentary.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the conception of the manuscript. SRS, JR, and AM wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. CJW reviewed the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Romano Smith, S.L., Roberts, J.W., Miller, A.J. et al. Theoretical explanations and the availability of information for learning via combined action observation and motor imagery: a commentary on Eaves et al. (2022). Psychological Research (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01955-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01955-8