The Effects of Motor Imagery, Physical Practice, and Combined Practice on the Jumping Power of Youth and Young Adults
Catherine Rush Thompson, PT, PhD, MS; Chelsea Luck, SPT; Malinda Childers, SPT; Nathan Marchese, SPT; Daniel Crenshaw, SPT; Read Wall, SPT
Purpose/Hypothesis: This study examined the impact of videotaped motor imagery, physical practice, and combined physical practice with motor imagery on the jumping power of children and young adults.
Participants: 16 males and 28 females ranging in ages from 7-10 (elementary age) and 19-25 years (college age)
Methods and Materials: Following informed consent and assent, participants were surveyed regarding their history of injuries (exclusionary criteria) and their ability to perform motor imagery (inclusionary criteria), using the Vividness of Motor Imagery Questionnaire. Participants were then randomly assigned into four groups: C (control; n=11), MI (motor imagery; n = 9), PP (physical practice; n = 11), and MI+PP (combined practice, n= 15). Participants engaged in their interventions with their assigned groups. Elementary-aged children were tested at a separate site from the college-aged students. Baseline assessments included 3 trials of the broad jump (BJ) and the vertical jump (VJ) following video instruction. Interventions were conducted separately by each group at separated stations. Audiovisual intervention: C and PP watched a 20-minute cartoon (distraction), while the MI and MI +PP group listened to a 3-minute motor imagery script designed to optimize their performance of VJ and BJ. Physical practice: PP and MI +PP performed physical practice, including 3 repetitions of broad jumps and vertical jumps each at their respective stations. VJ and BJ measures, as well as written journals to confirm mental activity, were obtained again post-intervention, and were statistically analyzed.
Results: Initial analysis of journals confirmed that those engaged in motor imagery were practicing it during their interventions. While 13 were assigned the MI group, only 9 performed the MI intervention. ANOVA revealed improvements for all groups for VJ and BJ over time (p<.001), but showed no differences between C, MI, PP, or MI + PP groups over time (VJ, p=.37 and BJ, p = .12). Further analysis using effect size revealed a small effect size as compared to C, for BJ (MI, d = 0.02, P, d = 0.02, MI + PP, d = .003) and VJ (MI, d = .29; PP, d = .34; and MI + PP, d = .03).
Conclusions: Effect size is a clinically applicable way of measuring the relative size of the effect of an intervention. These results indicate that a single intervention of MI, PP, or MI + PP has a relatively small effect on jumping power (<.04), as compared to the control group. While PP physical practice is known to improve motor performance, this small dosage was insufficient for significantly improving jumping power. Additional research is needed to examine if these various interventions have greater effects if used individually, practiced with greater intensity, and/or with greater frequency. Funding source: None
Participants: 16 males and 28 females ranging in ages from 7-10 (elementary age) and 19-25 years (college age)
Methods and Materials: Following informed consent and assent, participants were surveyed regarding their history of injuries (exclusionary criteria) and their ability to perform motor imagery (inclusionary criteria), using the Vividness of Motor Imagery Questionnaire. Participants were then randomly assigned into four groups: C (control; n=11), MI (motor imagery; n = 9), PP (physical practice; n = 11), and MI+PP (combined practice, n= 15). Participants engaged in their interventions with their assigned groups. Elementary-aged children were tested at a separate site from the college-aged students. Baseline assessments included 3 trials of the broad jump (BJ) and the vertical jump (VJ) following video instruction. Interventions were conducted separately by each group at separated stations. Audiovisual intervention: C and PP watched a 20-minute cartoon (distraction), while the MI and MI +PP group listened to a 3-minute motor imagery script designed to optimize their performance of VJ and BJ. Physical practice: PP and MI +PP performed physical practice, including 3 repetitions of broad jumps and vertical jumps each at their respective stations. VJ and BJ measures, as well as written journals to confirm mental activity, were obtained again post-intervention, and were statistically analyzed.
Results: Initial analysis of journals confirmed that those engaged in motor imagery were practicing it during their interventions. While 13 were assigned the MI group, only 9 performed the MI intervention. ANOVA revealed improvements for all groups for VJ and BJ over time (p<.001), but showed no differences between C, MI, PP, or MI + PP groups over time (VJ, p=.37 and BJ, p = .12). Further analysis using effect size revealed a small effect size as compared to C, for BJ (MI, d = 0.02, P, d = 0.02, MI + PP, d = .003) and VJ (MI, d = .29; PP, d = .34; and MI + PP, d = .03).
Conclusions: Effect size is a clinically applicable way of measuring the relative size of the effect of an intervention. These results indicate that a single intervention of MI, PP, or MI + PP has a relatively small effect on jumping power (<.04), as compared to the control group. While PP physical practice is known to improve motor performance, this small dosage was insufficient for significantly improving jumping power. Additional research is needed to examine if these various interventions have greater effects if used individually, practiced with greater intensity, and/or with greater frequency. Funding source: None