The Impact of Motor Imagery on Sitting Flexibility and a Standing Drawing Task Performed by Adults
Rashad Al-Sabban, SPT; Ashleigh McDaniel, SPT; Stephanie Moore, SPT; Julie Perrini, SPT
Faculty Mentors: Catherine Thompson, PT, Ph.D., MS
Purpose/Hypothesis: Review of current literature supports the positive effects of motor imagery combined with physical practice on flexibility. This study examined the impact of motor imagery (MI), physical practice (PP), and combined physical practice with motor imagery (MI + PP) on two tasks performed by adults: the Chair Sit and Reach Fitness Test (CSRFT) and the Clock Drawing Test performed in standing (CDT-standing). Researchers hypothesized that MI + PP would have a greater impact on performance of these tasks than MI, PP, and control (C) groups. Participants: 44 subjects ranging in ages of 21 to 74, 9 males and 35 females.
Methods and Materials: Participants meeting inclusion criteria signed an informed consent, performed the Vividness of Motor Imagery Questionnaire, and provided basic demographic information. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: C [M = 2, F = 9 ], MI [M = 2, F = 9], PP [M = 2, F = 8], or MI + PP [M = 3, F = 9]. Each participant was given a 10-second video demonstration of how to optimally perform the CSRFT and verbal instructions for the CDT-standing. Following instruction, participants were positioned in chair sitting and asked to reach as far as they are able, as per CSRFT protocol. Baseline data were measured in cm. For the CDT-standing baseline measure, participants copied a printed, standardized clock as quickly and as accurately as possible. Participants drew a baseline figure, measured in seconds to complete the task and accuracy, using a 10-point error scale. The interventions included: C watched a distraction video; MI watched the video of both tasks five times; PP practiced both tasks three times; and MI+PP performed both the MI and PP prior to post-tests. All interventions were designed to take a total of 10 minutes each. Final scores for the CSRFT and the CDT-standing were measured post-intervention.
Results: Using a within subjects design, mean scores for the CSRFT and the CDT-standing time were analyzed pre- and post-intervention across groups. Analyses of scores across both tasks demonstrated an improvement across all groups, including the control group. MANOVA analyses revealed no significant differences in the improvements between groups; however, there was a trend suggesting that MI+PP had a greater impact than other types of practice on performance of these two tasks. Intervention
****Groups Demographics Chair Sit and Reach Flexibility Test Clock Drawing Test in Standing Age range Mean age Gain in reach (in cm) Decrease in time (in sec) Reduction in errors (10.00 possible) Control 22-74 43 1.7091 -3.03 0.05 Physical Practice 20-67 44 1.22 -4.60 0.95 Motor Imagery 22-64 46 2.4818 -3.05 1.07 Motor Imagery + Physical Practice 20-67 44 2.7083 -5.56 1.21
Conclusions: Historically, motor imagery research focusing on combined practice has supported improvements in flexibility and performance of complex motor skills. The results from this study support positive effects of both MI and PP on flexibility and reaction time; however, it cannot be determined from this study that MI, PP, or MI+PP is more effective at improving flexibility or fine motor performance. Additional research is needed to determine the impact of physical practice and motor imagery, using a larger sample population, increasing the dosage of practice for groups, and/or increasing sensitivity and reliability of error measurement on the CDT-standing.
Rashad Al-Sabban, SPT; Ashleigh McDaniel, SPT; Stephanie Moore, SPT; Julie Perrini, SPT
Faculty Mentors: Catherine Thompson, PT, Ph.D., MS
Purpose/Hypothesis: Review of current literature supports the positive effects of motor imagery combined with physical practice on flexibility. This study examined the impact of motor imagery (MI), physical practice (PP), and combined physical practice with motor imagery (MI + PP) on two tasks performed by adults: the Chair Sit and Reach Fitness Test (CSRFT) and the Clock Drawing Test performed in standing (CDT-standing). Researchers hypothesized that MI + PP would have a greater impact on performance of these tasks than MI, PP, and control (C) groups. Participants: 44 subjects ranging in ages of 21 to 74, 9 males and 35 females.
Methods and Materials: Participants meeting inclusion criteria signed an informed consent, performed the Vividness of Motor Imagery Questionnaire, and provided basic demographic information. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: C [M = 2, F = 9 ], MI [M = 2, F = 9], PP [M = 2, F = 8], or MI + PP [M = 3, F = 9]. Each participant was given a 10-second video demonstration of how to optimally perform the CSRFT and verbal instructions for the CDT-standing. Following instruction, participants were positioned in chair sitting and asked to reach as far as they are able, as per CSRFT protocol. Baseline data were measured in cm. For the CDT-standing baseline measure, participants copied a printed, standardized clock as quickly and as accurately as possible. Participants drew a baseline figure, measured in seconds to complete the task and accuracy, using a 10-point error scale. The interventions included: C watched a distraction video; MI watched the video of both tasks five times; PP practiced both tasks three times; and MI+PP performed both the MI and PP prior to post-tests. All interventions were designed to take a total of 10 minutes each. Final scores for the CSRFT and the CDT-standing were measured post-intervention.
Results: Using a within subjects design, mean scores for the CSRFT and the CDT-standing time were analyzed pre- and post-intervention across groups. Analyses of scores across both tasks demonstrated an improvement across all groups, including the control group. MANOVA analyses revealed no significant differences in the improvements between groups; however, there was a trend suggesting that MI+PP had a greater impact than other types of practice on performance of these two tasks. Intervention
****Groups Demographics Chair Sit and Reach Flexibility Test Clock Drawing Test in Standing Age range Mean age Gain in reach (in cm) Decrease in time (in sec) Reduction in errors (10.00 possible) Control 22-74 43 1.7091 -3.03 0.05 Physical Practice 20-67 44 1.22 -4.60 0.95 Motor Imagery 22-64 46 2.4818 -3.05 1.07 Motor Imagery + Physical Practice 20-67 44 2.7083 -5.56 1.21
Conclusions: Historically, motor imagery research focusing on combined practice has supported improvements in flexibility and performance of complex motor skills. The results from this study support positive effects of both MI and PP on flexibility and reaction time; however, it cannot be determined from this study that MI, PP, or MI+PP is more effective at improving flexibility or fine motor performance. Additional research is needed to determine the impact of physical practice and motor imagery, using a larger sample population, increasing the dosage of practice for groups, and/or increasing sensitivity and reliability of error measurement on the CDT-standing.