The Effects of Motor Imagery on Musculoskeletal Flexibility of Youth and Young Adults
Abby Blair, SPT; Anna Ward, SPT; Andrew Melanson, SPT; Eric Halbleib, SPT; Jay Ryan, SPT; Michael Mitchelson, SPT
Faculty Mentor: Catherine Thompson, PT, PhD, MS
Purpose/Hypothesis: To examine the impact of stretching, motor imagery, and combined physical practice on musculoskeletal flexibility of adolescent and young adults. Subjects: 47 subjects participated in this study with 20 between the ages of 11-13 years old and 27 between the ages of 22-31 years old Methods and Materials: Prior to the study all subjects filled out a demographic survey related to previous motor imagery experience, previous/ current sports participation and previous/ current musculoskeletal injuries. Subjects were then randomly divided into four groups. The Vividness of Motor Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ), knee angle, Vividness of Motor Imagery Scale for Flexibility (VMIF), journal entry and sit-and-reach test were all assessed and recorded pre-intervention. The control group watched a random facts video. The physical practice (PP) group also watched the random facts video and then practiced the sit-and-reach test for 5 repetitions. The motor imagery (MI) group watched a video of a researcher performing the sit-and-reach test with guided instructions for relaxation. The motor imagery and physical practice (MI+PP) group also watched this motor imagery video and then practiced the sit-and-reach test 5 times. All of the above measures were again obtained post-intervention. Results: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect interactional significance. The sit-and-reach test was significant between time and group (p=0.054). All groups improved from pre-to post-intervention but the most improvement was observed in the MI group and the combined MI and PP group. All other factors were found to be significant for time except for the kinesthetic component of the VMIQ, which was not significant (p=0.124). The sit-and-reach data was further analyzed for effect size. The combined MI+PP group compared to the control had an effect size of 0.69 with CI95%, indicating that 73% of this group would perform significantly better than the control Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest the use of motor imagery to improve musculoskeletal flexibility of healthy youth and young adults, especially when combined with physical practice. Further testing is needed to determine the effectiveness of motor imagery through the use of video modeling and in conjunction with stretching, strengthening and pain management.
Faculty Mentor: Catherine Thompson, PT, PhD, MS
Purpose/Hypothesis: To examine the impact of stretching, motor imagery, and combined physical practice on musculoskeletal flexibility of adolescent and young adults. Subjects: 47 subjects participated in this study with 20 between the ages of 11-13 years old and 27 between the ages of 22-31 years old Methods and Materials: Prior to the study all subjects filled out a demographic survey related to previous motor imagery experience, previous/ current sports participation and previous/ current musculoskeletal injuries. Subjects were then randomly divided into four groups. The Vividness of Motor Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ), knee angle, Vividness of Motor Imagery Scale for Flexibility (VMIF), journal entry and sit-and-reach test were all assessed and recorded pre-intervention. The control group watched a random facts video. The physical practice (PP) group also watched the random facts video and then practiced the sit-and-reach test for 5 repetitions. The motor imagery (MI) group watched a video of a researcher performing the sit-and-reach test with guided instructions for relaxation. The motor imagery and physical practice (MI+PP) group also watched this motor imagery video and then practiced the sit-and-reach test 5 times. All of the above measures were again obtained post-intervention. Results: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect interactional significance. The sit-and-reach test was significant between time and group (p=0.054). All groups improved from pre-to post-intervention but the most improvement was observed in the MI group and the combined MI and PP group. All other factors were found to be significant for time except for the kinesthetic component of the VMIQ, which was not significant (p=0.124). The sit-and-reach data was further analyzed for effect size. The combined MI+PP group compared to the control had an effect size of 0.69 with CI95%, indicating that 73% of this group would perform significantly better than the control Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest the use of motor imagery to improve musculoskeletal flexibility of healthy youth and young adults, especially when combined with physical practice. Further testing is needed to determine the effectiveness of motor imagery through the use of video modeling and in conjunction with stretching, strengthening and pain management.