Order ID | 53563633773 |
Type | Essay |
Writer Level | Masters |
Style | APA |
Sources/References | 4 |
Perfect Number of Pages to Order | 5-10 Pages |
Visual Versus Kinesthetic Mental Imagery
Documento 1 de 1
Visual versus kinesthetic mental imagery: Efficacy for the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in young children.
Link para o documento do ProQuest
Resumo: The main purposes of this study were (a) to compare the effects of mental imagery combined with physical practise and specific physical practise on the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in young children; (b) to determine the mental imagery (visual vs. kinesthetic), which is the most efficient for retention and transfer of a closed motor skill; and (c) to verify the relationship between movement image vividness and motor performance. As for the secondary purpose, it was to compare the effects of gender on motor learning. Participants (n = 96) were selected from 3 primary schools. These participants were divided into 6 groups and submitted to different experimental conditions. The experimental task required the participants to throw, with the nondominant hand (left hand), a ball toward a target composed of 3 concentric circles. The results demonstrated that performance obtained by the mental imagery (visual or kinesthetic) combined with physical practise group was, during the retention phase, equivalent to that produced by the specific physical practise group but significantly superior during the transfer of closed motor skill. These results showed the potential benefits of mental imagery as a retention strategy intended for motor skills and performance enhancement. Such results could be explained by the similarity of 3 principal functional evidences shared by mental and physical practise: behavioural, central, and peripheral (as suggested by Holmes & Collins, 2001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)(journal abstract)
Links: SFX
Texto integral:
Sumário
Mostrar menos
Figuras e tabelas
Mostrar menos
Resumo
The main purposes of this study were (a) to compare the effects of mental imagery combined with physical practise and specific physical practise on the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in young children; (b) to determine the mental imagery (visual vs. kinesthetic), which is the most efficient for retention and transfer of a closed motor skill; and (c) to verify the relationship between movement image vividness and motor performance. As for the secondary purpose, it was to compare the effects of gender on motor learning. Participants (n = 96) were selected from 3 primary schools. These participants were divided into 6 groups and submitted to different experimental conditions. The experimental task required the participants to throw, with the nondominant hand (left hand), a ball toward a target composed of 3 concentric circles. The results demonstrated that performance obtained by the mental imagery (visual or kinesthetic) combined with physical practise group was, during the retention phase, equivalent to that produced by the specific physical practise group but significantly superior during the transfer of closed motor skill. These results showed the potential benefits of mental imagery as a retention strategy intended for motor skills and performance enhancement. Such results could be explained by the similarity of 3 principal functional evidences shared by mental and physical practise: behavioural, central, and peripheral (as suggested by Holmes & Collins, 2001).
Les buts principaux de cette étude étaient (a) de comparer les effets de l’imagerie mentale combinée à la pratique physique et la pratique physique spécifique sur la rétention et le transfert d’une habileté motrice fermée chez des enfants en bas âge ; (b) de déterminer la forme d’imagerie mentale (visuelle vs kinesthésique) la plus efficace pour la rétention et le transfert d’une habileté motrice fermée ; et (c) de vérifier la relation entre la saillance de l’image du mouvement et la performance motrice. Le but secondaire était de comparer l’effet du genre sur la performance motrice pendant l’exécution d’une habileté motrice fermée. Les participants (n = 96) ont été recrutés dans trois écoles primaires. Ils ont été divisés en six groupes et soumis à différentes conditions expérimentales. La tâche expérimentale exigeait que les participants lancent une balle sur une cible composée de trois cercles concentriques, à l’aide de leur main non-dominante (main gauche). La performance a été évaluée durant le prétest, le traitement, le test de rétention et le test de transfert. Les résultats ont démontré que la performance obtenue avec une combinaison d’imagerie mentale (visuelle ou kinesthésique) et de pratique physique équivaut à celle produite par la pratique physique spécifique durant la phase de rétention, mais est significativement supérieure durant le transfert de l’habileté motrice fermée. Ces résultats soulignent les avantages potentiels de l’imagerie mentale comme stratégie de rétention pour les habiletés motrices et l’amélioration des performances. De tels résultats peuvent être expliqués en vertu de la similitude entre trois composantes fonctionnelles principales partagées par la pratique mentale et physique : comportementale, centrale et périphérique (tel que suggéré par Holmes & Collins, 2001).
The effects of training strategies on the acquisition of motor and cognitive skills have occupied a very privileged place of interest amongst the teachers, researchers, and theorists of motor learning and performance (Adams, 1971, 1992; Famose, 1987, 1991; Hall, Bernoties, & Schmidt, 1995; Murphy & Martin, 2002; Schmidt & Lee, 2005; Shapiro & Schmidt, 1982; Weinberg & Gould, 2003). Gallwey (1974) and Adams (1971, 1976) suggested that specific physical practise organised in identical environmental condition represented the best training strategy for the mastery of movements. More specifically, in his closed loop theory, Adams (1971) stipulated that execution of any single movement requires the presence of two traces; the “perceptual trace,” which represents a recognition mechanism allowing the control of the movement precision and the “mnemonic trace,” which refers to a recall mechanism permitting the selection and production of movement (see Schmidt, 1975, 1988; Taktek, in press-a, in press-b; Taktek & Hochman, 2004, for further details).
Elsewhere, a new training strategy utilising mental imagery was inspired from the field of cognitive psychology (Ahsen, 1984; Denis, 1979, 1991; Finke, 1989; Kosslyn, 1994, 1995; Paivio, 1971; Piaget & Inhelder, 1971,1981; Taktek, 2006). This strategy was explored within the domain of physical activities and sports as an effective method for cognitive and/or motor skill enhancement (Blair, Hall, & Leyshon, 1993; Cumming & Ste-Marie, 2001; Decety, 2002; Denis, 1985; Holmes & Collins, 2001; Howe, 1991; Lesley & Gretchen, 1997; Paivio, 1985). The concept of mental imagery refers to a process of mental representation, mental rehearsal, or mental practise (Éloi & Denis, 1989; Decety, 1989; Taktek, 2004, 2006), and even motor imagery (Jeannerod, 1994). It is intimately related to quasi-sensorial or quasi-perceptual experiences and also to conscious activities, which manifest themselves without the necessary presence of external stimuli (Denis, 1989; Murphy, 1994; A. Richardson, 1967a, 1967b, 1983). Therefore, mental imagery represents a simulation experience (Weinberg & Gould, 2003), which remains private and subjective because it is inherent to the internal and mental functioning of the person’s brain (J. T. E. Richardson, 1991, 1999). Nevertheless, it could be expressed by means of drawing, language (Paivio, 1971; Piaget & Inhelder, 1966), or movement (Decety, 1991; Decety & Michel, 1989; Jeannerod, 1994) and measured by physiological and/or neurological techniques (Bolliet, Collet, & Dittmar, 2005;Decety, Philippon, & Ingvar, 1988; Deschaumes-Molinaro, Dittmar, & Vernet-Maury, 1991; Overton, 2004; Roure et al., 1999).
Several studies (Goss, Hall, Buckolz, & Fishburne, 1986; Housner, 1984; Housner & Hoffman, 1981; Jarus & Ratzon, 2000; Kohl, Ellis, & Roenker, 1992) talk in favour of mental imagery as a strategy of memorization. By studying the effects of mental imagery on the retention of a pursuit rotor task by students, Kohl et al. (Experiment 1), for instance, found that the retention performance obtained by the physical practise group (PPG) was equivalent to that produced by the physical practise group combined with mental imagery (PPMIG) but each significantly superior to that achieved by the group of physical practise combined with rest (PPRG) or mental imagery only (MIG). Finally, performance obtained by the two latter groups was equivalent but each significantly superior to that realised by the control group (CG). Kohl et al. proposed that the mechanisms shared by the PP and mental imagery after a given response remains at a higher level of the central nervous system. Nevertheless, the activation of the peripheral mechanisms does manifest itself only during PP. To attenuate these mechanisms, Kohl et al. suggested the utilisation of the contra-lateral limb during the retention phase. Therefore, they undertook a second experiment identical to the first except that the participants employed the dominant limb (right) during the acquisition phase and the nondominant limb (left) during the retention phase. The results revealed that the performance of the PPMIG group was significantly superior to that of any of the other groups. The performance obtained by the PPG and MIG was equivalent but each significantly superior to that produced by the PPRG or CG. Thus, these results confirmed Kohl et al.’s (Experiment 2) hypotheses according to which the use of the contra-lateral limb reduces the difference between PP and mental imagery by lessening the specificity of the activated peripheral mechanisms, during the acquisition and retention phases in the case of the PP. As an alternative procedure, Schmidt (1975) suggested the utilisation of the nondominant limb, the implication of children, and the introduction of a transfer task similar to the one employed during the acquisition phase rather than the transfer of limb. Thus, the primary purpose of this study was to compare the effects of mental imagery combined with physical practise and specific physical practise on the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in children 8 to 10 years of age.
As for the second purpose, it was to determine which form of mental imagery (visual vs. kinesthetic) had the most impact on retention and transfer of a closed motor task. Although the beneficial effect of mental imagery on the acquisition of cognitive and motor skills was supported by the majority of researchers (Barr & Hall, 1992; Hough, 1995; Martin & Hall, 1995; Zhang, Ma, Orlick, & Zizelsberger, 1992), the manipulated parameters during this imagery were not unanimous (Hardy, 1997; Hardy & Callow, 1999; White & Hardy, 1995). Several studies distinguish kinesthetic imagery from visual imagery (Féry, 2003; Fishburne, 1990; Fishburne & Hall, 1987; Hall, Buckolz, & Fishburne, 1992; Hall & Pongrac, 1983). Whereas the first form of imagery allows the representation of the neurophysiological (muscular sensations, proprioception, etc.) and temporal (rhythm, speed, duration) components, the second permits the evocation of the spatial (visualisation of space, size, amplitude or form of movement, etc.) components (Decety, 1989; Féry, 2003; Féry & Morizot, 2000; Sweigard, 1974). By using a closed motor task such as a tennis serve, Féry and Morizot put forward that kinesthetic imagery is more efficient than visual imagery when the emphasis is on the time parameter or duration of movement. This could be explained by the fact that this task requires the perception of the body as a generator of the necessary force for the movement execution. More specifically, Féry found that visual imagery is more efficient than kinesthetic imagery in the case of form reproduction (drawing) and that it was completely the opposite with regard to the reproduction of a task involving a time parameter or coordination of the two hands.
Although most studies dealt with the potential benefits of mental imagery on the motor skills and performance enhancement, the exploration of such imagery with children has been very scarce (Cadopi, 1990; Chevalier, Monnier, & Auger, 1995; Fishburne, 1990; Kosslyn, Margolis, Barret, & Goldknopf, 1990; Taktek, 2004; Taktek & Rigal, 2005). In their analyses of the child’s mental image development, Piaget and Inhelder (1966, 1971) highlighted that, during the preoperational stage (before 7 to 8 years), the child is unable to reproduce movement or transformation results and also is not capable to make anticipations. Nevertheless, these capacities appear with the advent of concrete operations, precisely around 7 to 8 years of age (see Taktek, 2006, for more details). Several studies have emphasised the capability of children to make proper use of visual and kinesthetic imagery (Kosslyn et al., 1990; Taktek & Rigal, 2005; Taktek, Salmoni, & Rigal, 2004). Fishburne, for instance, conducted a study with children belonging to the following three age groups: 6 and 7 years, 8 and 9 years, and 10 and 11 years. Initially, the children completed the Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ) developed by Hall and Pongrac (1983). Following each movement execution, the children rated the difficulty they encountered in imagining the movement. The results revealed that both visual and kinesthetic imagery capacities were significantly improved with age, especially from 6 to 7 years to 10 to 11 years.
The third purpose of this study was to verify the effects of movement imagery vividness on motor performance. Several researchers (Decety & Mick, 1988; Hall et al., 1995; Housner & Hoffman, 1981; Lovell & Collins, 2001;Marks, 1977; A. Richardson, 1994; Ryan & Simons, 1982) have dealt with the visual and kinesthetic imagery from the perspective of the individual’s imagery capacities rather than the characteristics of the task at hand. Based on their aptitudes to rehearse scenes, objects or movements, participants could be classified as high imagers or low imagers. Whereas high imagers can make proper use of mental imagery to accurately guide their motor responses, low imagers experience a lot of difficulty in rehearsing the appropriate mental image necessary for motor performance enhancement (Denis, 1989; Fishburne & Hall, 1987). Taktek et al. (2004), for example, studied the effects of mental imagery on the learning and transfer of a discrete motor task in 8 to 10-year-old children. Initially, the participants responded to the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (QVIM, in French; Fournier, Le Cren, Monnier, & Halliwell, 1994). The experimental task requires the participant to propel with the left hand a miniature vehicle during a predetermined time to reach a target distance. Performance for the temporal and spatial objectives were recorded during different experimental phases (pretest, treatment, posttest, and transfer). The results did not reveal any relation between the scores obtained at QVIM (in French) and the motor performance, prompting Taktek et al. to suggest two possible alternatives: (a) the experimental task does not rely on the participant’s mental imagery capacity or (b) the QVIM is not valid for use with 8 to 10 year old children and, therefore, certain modifications should be done to adapt its protocol to the level of this age category. Elsewhere, Hall, Buckolz, and Fishburne (1989) found that the performance obtained during the rememorization of simple movements by high imagers was not superior to that produced by low imagers. However the reproduction of these movements was less precise for the latter than the former.
A secondary purpose of this study was to compare gender imagery capacities during the execution of a closed motor task. Linn and Peterson (1985), Paivio and Clark (1990), and also Harshman and Paivio (1987) link the mental imagery capacity to gender. Thus, they distinguish static imagery (evocation of stationary and fixed objects) from dynamic imagery (evocation of moving objects, transformation, or rotation). In their meta-analysis of 172 studies dealing with spatial capacities, Linn and Peterson (1985) found that males outperformed females in activities such as mental rotation. These gender differences may result from differential rate of rotation, differential efficiency in strategy application, differential use of analytic processes, or differential caution. Nevertheless, the differences between genders decrease when the task relies on measurement related to spatial visualisation, which is characterised by analytic combination of both visual and nonvisual strategies. Based on the Individual Difference Questionnaire (IDQ), designed to assess individual differences in imagery and verbal habits and skills, Harshman and Paivio reported that females performed well on items related to the preferred use and vividness of static images whereas males performed well on items referring to dynamic imagery skills (movements, transformations, or reorganizations of imaged information). This could be explained by the fact that memory images, notably static pictorial images of experienced scenes, are more common for females. Oppositely, problem-solving use of images is more common for males. The evidence lead Harshman and Paivio to the conclusions that males might more often use active image transformation, be better at any imagery involving movement, and make less use of specific (episodic) memory imagery and more use of generic constructed images.
In light of the above literature overview, the hypotheses of this study could be formulated as follows: (a) mental imagery combined with physical practise produces, during the retention phase, equivalent performance as the specific physical practise but significantly better performance during the transfer phase; (b) kinesthetic mental imagery combined with physical practise affords the best retention and transfer performance; (c) high-vivid imagers will outperform low-vivid imagers during the execution of closed motor skill; and (d) boys will obtain better motor performance than that produced by girls.
Method
Participants
Ninety-six participants were selected from three primary schools. The participants’ age varied between 8 and 10 years old (Grades 3, 4, or 5; see Table 1, for groups’ age average). No apparent physical (broken leg, arm, etc.) or sensorial (blindness, vision problem, etc.) handicap was detected on the selected participants. The latter were right-handed based on the adapted French version of Oldfield’s (1971) Laterality Questionnaire. They never had been exposed to motor imagery prior to the experiment. Participation was voluntary, unpaid, and approved by the parents’ consents.
Mean Results and Variability (SD) for Each Experimental Group in the Imagery Test and in the Motor Performance (Treatment Blocks and Experimental Phases)
Experimental Task and Material
The task took place in a gymnasium (in each of the three primary schools) where the experimental device was installed. The participant was required to execute with her/his left hand (nondominant hand; as suggested bySchmidt, 1975, 1988) an underarm throw of a ball toward a target (Schmidt, 1975; Shapiro & Schmidt, 1982; Taktek, in press-a, in press-b; Van Rossum, 1987, 1990). Before performing her/his throw, the participant was informed about the nature of her/his motor task and the instructions related to her/his group. Furthermore, she/he was asked to stand up behind a throwing line marked on the floor at 200 cm from the target. This target was composed of three concentric circles with diameters of 20, 40, and 60 cm. The scores were recorded as follow: 3 points if the ball reached the smallest concentric circle, 2, and 1 for the other circles, respectively. The centre of the target was located at 130 cm of height from the floor. The target was drawn with a black felt pen on a great format paper posted on the wall. Six targets were marked at 200 cm of interval one from the other so that several participants could execute their throws at the same time. The prerecorded mental imagery instructions were transmitted to the participants by a SONY tape recorder, model CFD–ZW770.
Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire
After the administration of Oldfield’s (1971) Laterality Questionnaire, adapted in French by Rigal (1996, p. 336), each right-handed participant was placed in a very quiet area and requested to respond individually to the French version of the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire (VMIQ). Isaac, Marks, and Russell (1986) underlined that the
(VMIQ) uses a similar format to the VVIQ [Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire] but is composed of 24 items relevant to movement imagery: visual imagery of movement itself and imagery of kinesthetic sensations…. The questionnaire is designed with the intention that it can be administered to a wide variety of subjects differing in age and experience and, therefore, the items relate to common situations and not to specific motor skills. (p. 24)
The test–retest reliability of the VMIQ was assessed on 220 students using the Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient (r = .76). As for the validity (relationship between the VMIQ and VVIQ) on the first administration of the questionnaires for the same group, it was r = .81, using the Pearson product–moment correlation (Isaac et al., 1986, pp. 27–28). This Questionnaire was translated into French (QVIM) adapted and validated by Fournier et al. (1994):
the validity and reliability [of the VMIQ] are equivalent to those measured for the original version although the format of the questionnaire was sensibly modified. Campos and Perez (1988) had elsewhere confirmed the running validity of the Questionnaire with comparison to other imagery tests […]. The preliminary study shows that the Questionnaire is understood by the schoolboys and schoolgirls of the French School “Stanislas” as well as the students of ‘Université du Québec à Montréal.’ Therefore, this version could be used by the French people of Quebec and France. (author’s translation, p. 2)
Moreover, Fournier et al. (1994) underlined that this questionnaire could be administered by subjects of all ages. Each participant was requested to measure the vividness (clarity) of the image evoked by means of 24 movements underlined on a 5-point Likert scale. The participant was asked to, first, imagine someone doing each movement (external imagery perspective) and, last, imagine himself performing each of these movements (internal imagery perspective; Mahoney & Avener, 1977). The imagery score varied between 0 and 120 for each internal or external imagery perspective. A high score of the questionnaire reflects high-movement vividness (Fournier et al., 1994).
Procedure
The research project was approved by Laurentian University’s (LU) Ethic Board. Three primary schools, St-Denis, St-Etienne Blais (Catholic School Board District of “Nouvel Ontario”) and Jeanne Sauvé (School Board District of “Grand Nord de l”Ontario’) were contacted by the researcher. The School Board research coordinators as well as the School Heads agreed to participate to the study. They were individually briefed about the research project and received a copy of the experimental protocol, the LU’s Ethic Board approval letter, and the parent’s consent letter. Teachers of Grades 3, 4, and/or 5, amongst the three selected primary schools, took the responsibility to distribute the parent’s consent letters to their schoolboys and schoolgirls and to ask to have the letters return back to them within a week. All the letters were kept in hold for the experimenter at the school secretariat.
At the beginning of the experiment, participants were, first, asked to respond to the adapted French version of Oldfield’s (1971) Laterality Questionnaire (LQ; see Rigal, 1996, p. 336). Only the right-handed participants were, then, selected to respond to the QVIM (in French). They were divided into two groups (boys and girls) and ranged from high imagers to low imagers, for each group, based on their mental imagery capacity score. Finally, participants were allocated to six experimental groups. To neutralise the effects of the gender variable on the acquisition of motor skills and performance (Corlett, Anton, Kozub, & Tardif, 1989; Kosslyn et al., 1990), each group was composed of 8 girls and 8 boys, distributed based on their score at the QVIM, in such a way to maintain a homogenous imagery capacity between the groups (Decety & Mick, 1988; Hall et al., 1992; see Table 1). The experimenter explained the details regarding the LQ and the QVIM (in French) and responded to all asked questions. Moreover, he informed the participants about the manner their performance will be tested and the trial numbers they have to do during each experimental phase. The results of the pilot project showed that the participants (8 to 10 years old children) understood very well the imagery instructions and were able to use them to improve their performance. The experimenter explained the underarm throw, responded to all questions raised by the participants and did a demonstration. Under the physical practise conditions, the participant threw the ball with her/his left hand. However, under the imagery condition, each participant closed her/his eyes, took the tennis ball in her/his left hand, listened to the imagery instructions and imagined or felt the actual physical underarm throw (Decety & Michel, 1989; Kohl et al., 1992). The participants of each of the VIPPG and KIPPG alternated between the physical and mental practises after each trial (Kohl et al., 1992; Taktek et al., 2004). Several participants (two groups of six participants and one group of four participants, n = 16) belonging to the same group practised their actual or imagined underarm throw at the same time, under the signal given by the experimenter. After each physical throw, the participant retrieved her/his ball, wrote the number of points corresponding to her/his throw on a paper placed at her/his right side, and got ready for the next trial. The experimenter verified the correctness of the reported scores (see Elfaqir, 1982, for more details).
At the beginning of the experience, each participant was allowed to execute two familiarization trials with the experimental task. After each throw, a 10-s rest period was given to the participant so that she/he received the necessary feedback on the result of her/his throw, wrote the appropriate point numbers and got ready for the subsequent trial. To eliminate the effect of tiredness, a 20-s rest period was authorized after each set of five trials. Finally, a 15, 30, or 15 min period of time separated, respectively the pretest from treatment; treatment from posttest; or posttest from transfer (Kohl et al., 1992). Each participant executed a total of 35 throws divided into 5, 20, 5, and 5 during the pretest, treatment, posttest, and transfer, respectively (Chevalier, Denis, & Boucher, 1987; Taktek & Rigal, 2005; Taktek et al., 2004).
Experimental Phases
The experimental phases of the present study were the pretest, treatment, posttest (as suggested by Decety, 1989; Denis, 1985; Hall et al., 1992) and transfer (see Schmidt, 1975, 1988; Taktek, in press-a, in press-b;Taktek et al., 2004; Van Rossum, 1987, 1990, for further details).
Pretest phase
Each participant of the different experimental groups executed five times an underarm throw of a yellow tennis ball weighting 50g toward a target located at 200 cm.
Treatment phase and experimental conditions
The participants of the specific physical practise group (SPPG) executed 20 underarm throws of a tennis ball. The weight of this ball and the distance to the target were identical to those utilised during the pretest: 50g and 200 cm, respectively.
The participants of the visual imagery group (VIG) executed mentally 20 underarm throws. The instructions were: “Hold the tennis ball with your left hand. Close your eyes. Imagine very clearly the tennis ball moving toward the centre of the target situated at 200 cm. Open your eyes at the end of the movement.”
As for the participants of the kinesthetic imagery group (KIG), they executed mentally 20 underarm throws. The instructions were: “Hold the tennis ball with your left hand. Close your eyes. Feel very clearly the force in the muscle of your left hand in order to throw the 50g tennis ball. Open your eyes at the end of the movement.”
The participants of the visual imagery combined with physical practise (VIPPG) and kinesthetic imagery combined with physical practise (KIPPG) executed 10 physical practise trials and 10 mental imagery trials. The physical practise throws were identical to those of the SPPG and the mental throws were identical to those of the VIG or KIG with regards to respectively the VIPPG or KIPPG.
Finally, the participants of the control group (CG) were involved in silent reading for the same period of time allowed for each of the other groups.
Posttest phase
Each participant of the different experimental groups executed physically five throws of a yellow tennis ball. The weight of this ball and the distance separating the participant from the target were identical to those used during the pretest phase: 50g and 200 cm, respectively.
Transfer phase
Each participant of the different experimental groups executed physically five throws of a rubber ball weighting 150g toward a concentric circle target situated at 250 cm.
Design
Independent variables
The between-groups variables were: (a) the six experimental groups of SPPG, VIG, KIG, VIPPG, KIPPG, and CG; and (b) gender. As for the within-group variable, they were either the treatment phase and the trial block numbers (Block 1, Block 2, Block 3, and Block 4) or the experimental phases (pretest, posttest, and transfer).
Dependent variables
The dependent variable was the number of points corresponding to the underarm throw or the score obtained at QVIM.
Measures and Statistical Analyses
To facilitate the result comparisons of the six experimental conditions, the number of points obtained, during the 20 trials of the treatment phase, was calculated based on the average of four blocks of five successive trials: (a) Block 1 (1 to 5 average trials), Block 2 (6 to 10 average trials), Block 3 (11 to 15 average trials), and Block 4 (6 to 20 average trials). Three analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were conducted according to the following designs: 3 (SPPG, VIPPG, and KIPPG) × 2 (gender) × 4 (block), with repeated measures on the last factor; 6 (SPPG, VIG, KIG, VIPPG, KIPPG, and CG) × 2 (gender) × 3 (pretest, posttest, and transfer) with repeated measures on the last factor; and 6 (SPPG, VIG, KIG, VIPPG, KIPPG, and CG) × 2 (gender) × 2 (external vs. internal perspective), with repeated measures on the last factor. The four ANOVAs assumptions (independence of observations, normality of observations, homogeneity of group variances, and sphericity) were satisfied. The technique suggested by Sidak (Hsu, 1996, p. 160, SPSS, 2001) was utilised for a posteriori comparisons of means.
Finally, the degree of relationship between the scores on the mental imagery capacity and motor performance obtained during the experimental phases was calculated with Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Results
Group Effect During the Four Blocks of the Treatment Phase
Table 1 shows the results in each experimental condition. The ANOVA revealed that the block trials, F(3, 40) = 7.683, p < .001, η2 = .366, observed power (OP) = .980, and group effect, F(2, 42) = 24.768, p < .001, η2 = .541, OP = 1.000, were significant. The gender effect was not. The Block Trials × Groups was the only significant interaction, F(6, 82) = 3.115, p < .01, η2 = .186, OP = .898.
The simple effects analysis of the Block Trials × Groups interaction revealed that differences between the three experimental groups were significant during all the block trials, Block 1: F(2, 42) = 7.076, p < .005, η2 = .252, OP = .912; Block 2: F(2, 42) = 37.589, p < .001, η2 = .642, OP = 1.000; Block 3: F(2, 42) = 6.129, p < .005, η2 = .226, OP = .866; and Block 4: F(2, 42) = 19.223, p < .001, η2 = .478, OP = 1.000. However, differences between block trials were significant only for VIPPG, F(3, 40) = 6.025, p < .005, η2 = .311, OP = .940; and KIPPG, F(3, 40) = 7.665, p < .001, η2 = .365, OP = .980. The a posteriori comparisons for Block 1 revealed that the number of points for the KIPPG was significantly lower than that for SPPG (p < .005). For Block 2, the number of points for KIPPG was significantly lower than those for the VIPPG (p < .05) or SPPG (p < .001). Furthermore, the number of points for the SPPG was significantly higher than that for VIPPG (p < .001). For each of Block 3 and 4, the number of points for VIPPG or KIPPG was significantly lower than that for SPPG (both p< .001). In addition, the number of points for VIPPG, at Block 4, was significantly lower than that at Block 1 (p ≤ .001) or 3 (p < .05). The number of points for KIPPG, at each of Block 2 and 4, was significantly lower that at Block 1 (both p < .05) or 3 (p ≤ .001 and p < .005, respectively).
In summary, during the treatment phase, performance (number of points) of the mental imagery groups (KIPPG and VIPPG) was significantly lower than that of the specific physical practise group (SPPG; exception for the performance at Block 1, which was equivalent between the VIPPG and SPPG). Moreover, performance of the imagery groups (KIPPG, VIPPG) decreased significantly from Block 1 to Block 4, but for the SPPG performance remained stable between the different block trials (see Figure 1).
Mean point numbers in the different blocks of the treatment phase, for each experimental group (VIPPG = visual imagery combined with physical practise group; KIPPG = kinesthetic imagery combined with physical practise group; SPPG = specific physical practise group). Vertical lines depict ± two standard errors of the mean.
Group Effect During the Three Experimental Phases
Table 1 also shows the results of each group in each experimental phase (pretest, posttest, and transfer). The ANOVA revealed that the experimental phase, F(2, 83) = 20.718, p < .001, η2 = .333, OP = 1.000; and group effect, F(5, 84) = 7.924, p < .001, η2 = .320, OP = .999; were significant. The gender effect was not. The Experimental Phase × Group interaction was significant, F(10, 168) = 6,338, p < .001, η2 = .274, OP = 1.000. The Experimental Phase × Gender interaction, was not significant: F(2, 83) = .593, p > .05, η2 = .02, OP = .146.
The simple effects analysis of the Experimental Phase × Group interaction revealed that differences between the six groups were significant only during the experiment’s posttest, F(5, 84) = 11.084, p < .001, η2 = .398, OP = 1.000; and transfer, F(5, 84) = 10.355, p < .001, η2 = .381, OP = 1.000. In addition, differences between experimental phases were significant for VIPPG: F(2, 83) = 14.019, p < .001, η2 = .253, OP = .998; KIPPG: F(2, 83) = 9.847, p < .001, η2 = .192, OP = .980; KIG: F(2, 83) = 4.579, p < .001, η2 = .099; OP = .762; CG: F(2, 83) = 9.066, p < .05, η2 = .179, OP = .971; and SPPG: F(2, 83) = 16.784, p < .001, η2 = .288, OP = 1.000, except for VIG: p > .05. The a posteriori comparisons for the posttest phase of the experiment revealed that the number of points for KIPPG or VIPPG was significantly higher than that for VIG (p < .005 and p < .001, respectively) or CG (both p < .001). The number of points for CG was significantly lower than that for KIG (p < .05) or SPPG (p ≤ .001). For the transfer phase of the experiment, the number of points for KIPPG or VIPPG was significantly higher than that for CG (both p < .001) or SPPG (p < .001 and p ≤ .001, respectively). The number of points for CG was significantly lower than that for KIG (p < .005). The number of points for KIPPG was significantly higher than that for VIG (p < .05). Furthermore, the number of points for VIPPG, KIPPG, KIG, or SPPG at posttest phase was significantly higher than at pretest phase (p < .001, p < .001, p < .05, and p < .05, respectively). The number of points for KIPPG at transfer phase was significantly higher than that at pretest phase (p < .01). However, the number of points at the latter phase for SPPG or CG was significantly higher than that at transfer phase (p < .005 and p < .001, respectively). Finally, the number of points for VIPPG, CG, or SPPG at posttest phase was significantly higher than that at transfer phase (p < .05, p < .05, and p < .001, respectively; Figure 2; Table 1).
Mean point numbers as a function of the different experimental phases for each group (VIPPG = visual imagery combined with physical practise group; VIG = Visual imagery group; KIPPG = kinesthetic imagery combined with physical practise group; KIG = kinesthetic imagery group; CG = control group; SPPG = specific physical practise group). Vertical lines depict ± two standard errors of the mean.
As for the simple effects analysis of the Experimental Phase × Gender interaction, they revealed that differences between gender were not significant during each of the experimental phases, pretest, posttest, and transfer (p> .05). However, the differences between experimental phases were significant for boys, F(2, 83) = 9.031, p < .001, η2 = .179, OP = .970; and girls, F(2, 83) = 12.28, p < .001, η2 = .228, OP = .995. The a posteriori comparisons for the experimental phases revealed that the number of points for boys and girls at posttest was significantly higher than that at pretest phase (both p < .001) or transfer phase (p ≤ .005 and p < .001, respectively; see Table 1).
In summary, during the pretest phase, performance (number of points) of the six groups KIPPG, VIPPG, KIG, VIG, SPPG, CG was equivalent. In addition, during the posttest phase, performance of all imagery groups (KIPPG, VIPPG, KIG, and VIG) and specific physical practise group (SPPG) was equivalent, but each was significantly higher than that of the control group (CG, exception for the performance of the VIG, which was equivalent). Finally, during the transfer phase, performance for each mental imagery condition combined with physical practise group (KIPPG or VIPPG) was significantly higher than that of the SPPG or CG. Whereas performance of each of the KIPPG, VIPPG, KIG, and SPPG groups improved significantly from the pretest phase to the posttest phase, performance of the CG an VIG remained stable between the latter two phases.
Group Effect at the QVIM
Table 1 also shows the results of each group at the QVIM. The main effect of imagery perspectives was significant, F(1, 84) = 4.046, p < .047, η2 = .046, OP = .511. The other main effects were not significant. Only one significant two-way interaction, Imagery Perspectives × Gender, was significant, F(1, 84) = 6.351, p < .05, η2 = .070, OP = .702; and the three-way interaction, Imagery Perspectives × Groups × Gender, was also significant,F(5, 84) = 2.693, p < .05, η2 = .138, OP = .792.
The simple effects analysis of the Imagery Perspectives × Gender interaction revealed that there is no difference between boys and girls in terms of their internal or external perspective (both p > .05). In addition, differences between imagery perspectives were significant only for boys, F(1, 84) = 10.268, p < .005, η2 = .109, OP = .886.
Relationship Between Mental Imagery Capacity and Motor Performance
The correlation coefficients between the scores at QVIM and at motor performance were close to zero (not significant) in most cases. The only significant correlations exist between the scores for external and internal imagery perspectives, r = .844, p < .001; external and total imagery perspectives, r = .931, p < .001; external imagery perspective and pretest, r = .224, p < .05; external imagery perspective and Block 2, r = .316, p < .05; and also internal and total imagery perspectives, r = .945, p < .001.
Discussion
The Effects of Visual Versus Kinesthetic Mental Imagery on a Closed Motor Skill Performance During the Treatment Phase
In general, performance (number of points) produced, during the treatment phase, by the SPPG was significantly higher than that obtained by the KIPPG and VIPPG (exception for the performance at Block 1, which was equivalent). These results could be explained by the fact that each of KIPPG and VIPPG required the participants to change their motor response after each trial, which did not allow the immediate correction of the last trial and the consolidation of an adequate motor response. Conversely, SPPG permitted the opportunity for the participant to develop a better and more solid relation between the motor responses. Therefore, the participants of the imagery groups (KIPPG and VIPPG) probably had difficulty in surmounting the “contextual interference” caused by the alternation between the actual physical and the mental physical practises. In fact, during the different blocks of the treatment phase, SPPG’s performance remained stable. Conversely, KIPPG or VIPPG’s performance was variable and even decreased significantly at the end of the treatment phase (most notably at Block 4).Gabrielle, Hall, and Lee (1989) found that, during the acquisition (treatment) phase, the imagery practise combined with physical practise of different motor tasks (random practise) produce the contextual interference effect. The acquisition data of the present study showed that such contextual interference could be even caused by alternating between mental imagery and physical practise for the same task.
From Adams’ (1971) closed loop point of view, specific physical practise increases the precision of feedback, which in turn allows the consolidation of a perceptual trace responsible for movement correction. Conversely, when physical practise is associated with other forms of practise (such as mental imagery), the felt feedback is not necessarily the same from trial to trial, which does not allow the perceptual trace to gain rigor and to enhance the movement precision (Adams, 1992; Taktek, in press-a, in press-b; Taktek & Hochman, 2004).
The interaction between number of block trials and groups did not reveal any performance improvement from Block 1 through Block 4. These results could emerge as a consequence of the block trial performance combination (average of four blocks of five trials), which probably camouflaged the eventual intertrial improvement. A more plausible explanation is that the treatment practise trials were not sufficient to ensure such an improvement. In his motor schema theory, Schmidt (1975, 1988) as well as Shapiro and Schmidt (1982) underlined that the learning of a single schema by children (as, e.g., during an underarm throw) required 1,000 practise trials. Although this assertion raised some controversies in the field of motor learning and performance (Elfaqir, 1982; Van Rossum, 1990), it could explain in some extend that the limited number of practise (20 trials), during the treatment, did not allow the “formation” of the appropriate motor schema and, thus, the learning of the task at hand (Taktek & Hochman, 2004). Kerr (1982) differentiated between the terms formation and attainment (or realisation). Whereas the former refers to the abstraction of rules occurring from specific environmental events, the latter refers to the application of these already built rules in specific conditions. Because participants were young (8 to 10 years old) and they used their nondominant hand (left) to execute the experimental task, the formation of the appropriate motor schema seemed to require more practise trials (Kerr & Booth, 1978). Therefore, the potential benefit of each practise strategy (SPPG, PPKMIG, and PPVMIG) did not manifest itself in short term, notably during the treatment phase, likely due to latent learning. However, this improvement came into view, in long term, particularly during the subsequent phase of retention and/or transfer. Most research dealing with the mental imagery hypothesis used an experimental task engaging a process of attainment of a motor schema instead of formation of a new one because the participants were usually adult, they used their dominant hand and their performance was rarely assessed during a transfer task. This shows probably the originality of the present study.
In summary, mental imagery combined with physical practise (KIPPG or VIPPG) did not allow, during the treatment phase, the achievement of equivalent or superior results than those for specific physical practise (SPPG). These results could be explained by the two following principle factors: (a) The contextual interference effect caused by the alternation after each trial between mental and physical practises for the same task; and (b) the weakness of the perceptual trace responsible of the movement correction, which was due to the combination of physical practise with other forms of practise, notably mental imagery. The next section of this paper will address at what levels the conclusions of the treatment phase could be generalised to the retention and transfer phases.
The Effects of Visual Versus Kinesthetic Mental Imagery on the Retention and Transfer of a Closed Motor Skill
The interactions between the experimental phases and groups revealed that the performance produced during the pretest phase by the six groups was equivalent, confirming the homogeneity of initial motor skill level of the participants and, therefore, satisfied the requirement of the mental imagery research assumption (Decety, 1989; Decety & Mick, 1988; Denis, 1985; Denis, Chevalier, & Éloi, 1989; Feltz & Landers, 1983; Hinshaw, 1991;Taktek, 2004). Furthermore, performance obtained during the posttest phase by each imagery group (KIPPG, VIPPG, KIG, and VIG) was equivalent to that produced by the specific physical practise group (SPPG). This equivalence showed the efficiency of mental imagery (Gould, Damarjian, & Greenleaf, 2002; Murphy & Martin, 2002) as a retention strategy in the field of motor kills and performance, thus endorsing Kohl et al.’s (1992)findings (see also Gabrielle et al., 1989).
Research conducted by Decety (1989) demonstrated the equivalence of mental imagery and physical practise. This equivalence was tested, using times measured to execute physically and mentally a graphic action (i.e., signature); write a sentence; draw a cube (Decety & Michel, 1989); and walk toward fixed targets (Decety, Jeannerod, & Prablanc, 1989). Such results support those of the present study and could be explained by the fact that (a) physical and mental practise share a common mechanism that is responsible for the movements’ temporal organisation, and (b) movements executed physically or mentally are controlled by the same general motor programme (Decety, 1989; see Taktek, 2004, for more details). Holmes and Collins (2001) encircled these conclusions in what they termed as “behavioural evidence for functional equivalence” (p. 66) between mental imagery and physical practise.
Decety et al.(1988) found that, during a writing task, the values of the regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) for mental imagery (MI) and physical practise (PP) were increased bilaterally in the prefrontal region, in the supplementary motor areas and in the regions corresponding to the cerebellum (respectively, an increase of 10%, 15%, and 15% for MI and 10%, 15%, and 20% for PP) compared to an initial rest condition. These results show that the cerebellum seems to contribute to the formation of a motor programme in both MI and PP conditions. Moreover, by using a tennis task, Decety Sjoholm, Ryding, Stenberg, and Ingvar (1990) found that the rCBF mean in both hemispheres increased significantly more under mental imagery condition than a rest or silent counting condition. These results lead to the conclusion that the cerebellum could play an active role during mental imagery.
Malouin, Richards, Jackson, Dumas, and Doyon (2003), for their part, examined the pattern of brain activation during mental imagery of four motor tasks: standing, initiating gait, walking, and walking with obstacles. When these conditions were compared to a rest condition, the results revealed a common set of activated structures including the dorsal premotor cortex and precuneus bilaterally, the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the left inferior parietal lobule, and the right posterior cingulated cortex. Additional activation in the presupplementary motor area (pre-SMA), the precentral gyrus, were observed during the mental imagery of the locomotor movements per se.
By studying the effects of mental and physical practise on the acquisition of a five-finger piano exercise, Pascual-Leone et al. (1995) found that mental practise-only led to significant performance improvement. Although this improvement was less than that produced by physical practise, mental practise-only led to the same plastic changes in the motor system as those occurring with the acquisition of the skill by repeated physical practise. Hence, mental practise-only seems to be sufficient to promote the modulation of neural circuits involved in the early stages of fine motor skill learning.
Altogether, the findings of Decety (1989); Decety et al. (1988, 1990); Malouin et al. (2003) and also Pascual-Leone et al. (1995) suggested that mental imagery and physical practise share common neural mechanisms and, thus play an equivalent central role in the execution of locomotor or fine motor tasks (Holmes & Collins, 2001)
As for the peripheral functional equivalence between mental and physical practise, it is measured by calculating: (a) the increase in pulmonary ventilation and cardiac rhythm, (b) the cardio-vascular and respiratory change during tendinous vibration, and (c) the increase in cardiac frequency and ventilation as the intensity of the imagined effort increases (Bolliet et al., 2005; Holmes & Collins, 2001; Jeannerod, 1994; Taktek, 2004). More precisely, Deschaumes-Molinaro et al. (1991) compared three conditions, namely concentration prior to shooting, actual shooting, and a mental representation of shooting. The six autonomous nervous system (ANS) variables measured were: electrodermal response (skin potential and resistance), thermovascular variables (skin blood flow (original sensor) and skin temperature, and cardiorespiratory variables (instantaneous heart rate and respiratory frequency). The results for the six ANS variables were equivalent between the three experimental conditions, prompting Deschaumes-Molinaro et al. to conclude that mental imagery may represent a form of concentration.
Therefore, the equivalence between performance obtained during the posttest phase of the present study by each imagery group (KIPPG, VIPPG, KIG, and VIG) and SPPG could be explained by three principal functional evidences, behavioural, central, and peripheral (see Holmes & Collins, 2001, for further details).
As for results of the transfer phase, they indicated that performance of each mental imagery combined with physical practise group (KIPPG or VIPPG) was significantly higher than that produced by the SPPG or CG. These results could be explained by the fact that the mental imagery combined with physical practise group (KIPPG or VIPPG) allowed participants to practise, during the treatment phase, two motor learning strategies by alternating after each trial between the specific physical practise and mental imagery (Taktek & Rigal, 2005). More precisely, the execution of 10 trials of physical practise combined with 10 trials of mental imagery could have lead to a substantial cortical, peripheral, and behavioural functioning enhancement (Holmes & Collins, 2001). If this explanation is plausible, why then mental imagery combined with physical practise (KIPPG or VIPPG) did not produce better motor performance during the treatment phase or retention phase?
In his motor schema theory, Schmidt (1975) assumed that variable physical practise led, during the treatment phase, to motor performance lower than that produced by specific physical practise but, during the subsequent transfer phase, to better motor learning performance. Such results could be explained by the fact that variable physical practise allows the formation of a general and flexible motor schema, which has a better potential of adaptation for novel motor task, similar but not identical to that previously executed; namely transfer task (see Taktek, in press-a, in press-b, for more details). This is what probably occurred in the case of the mental imagery combined with physical practise group (KIPPG or VIPPG). The latter groups afford to their participants the opportunity to develop a flexible motor schema to thwart the changes, during the transfer phase, at the level of force and space parameters (150g and 250 cm, respectively). However, it was not the case for each of the CG and SPPG. With respect to performance obtained by the CG, it seems to be systematically due to the absence of practise during the treatment phase (Kohl et al., 1992). As for performance produced by the SPPG, it indicates that probably this strategy of practise was favourable for the consolidation of the motor schema’s space and force parameters. Such a schema becomes very specialised for producing the same parameters to fit an identical learning environment (Adams, 1971) but very rigid to adapt to dynamic and spatial novel circumstances (Schmidt, 1975). Rarely, studies dealing with the effects of mental imagery versus specific physical practise on motor skills and performance have compared the experimental groups based on a transfer task (Schmidt, 1975,1988; Schmidt & Lee, 2005; Taktek et al., 2004). Because performance obtained, during the retention phase by each imagery group combined with physical practise (KIPPG and VIPPG) was equivalent to that produced by the SPPG but significantly better during the transfer phase, the first hypothesis of the present study was confirmed.
The results of this study also revealed that mental imagery groups produced equivalent retention and transfer motor performance when either the imagery instructions emphasise the kinesthetic or visual components (KIG = VIG and KIPPG = VIPPG). Féry (2003) and also Féry and Morizot (2000) found that kinesthetic imagery is more efficient than visual imagery when the task engaged the time parameter, movement duration (Féry & Morizot, 2000), or coordination of the two hands, and that is completely the opposite which would occur in the case of form reproduction (drawing; Féry, 2003). The experimental task employed in the present study entails the coordination of one hand movement, that is, an underarm throw of a ball toward a concentric circle target, rather than the reproduction of a form. Furthermore, the kinesthetic (KIG or KIPPG) and visual (VIG or VIPPG) imagery instructions seem to emphasise respectively the force required for throwing a ball (“Feel very clearly the force in the muscle of your left hand in order to throw the 50g tennis ball”) or the movement (speed) of that ball (“Imagine very clearly the tennis ball moving toward the centre of the target situated at 200 cm”). Therefore, the equivalence between the kinesthetic and visual imagery instructions could be explained by the fact that they involve similar parameters of the motor task and that these instructions emphasise the perception of the body as a producer of force (or speed) necessary for the movement execution (Féry & Morizot, 2000). The results of the present study support then those found by several researchers (Chevalier et al., 1987; Féry, 2003; Féry & Morizot, 2000; Hardy, 1997). The failure to find any differences between the visual and kinesthetic imagery conditions could have been also because participants of the concrete operational stage (Piaget, 1973a, 1973b; Piaget & Inhelder, 1966, 1981), notably between the ages of 8 and 10 years old, were using both visual and kinesthetic imagery instead of just the type of imagery they were assigned. It is also possible that the imagery instructions directed the participants’ attention toward the object of the imagery process rather than the type of imagery (body vs. ball). Because the kinesthetic imagery combined with physical practise (KIPPG) did not always reflect the best motor performance, the study’s second hypothesis was rejected.
The Effects of Mental Imagery Capacity on the Performance of a Closed Motor Task
In general, the results did not show any positive coefficient of correlation between the participant’s score at the QVIM (in French) and their motor performance at the pretest, treatment, posttest or transfer phase. These results reject the third hypothesis of the present study, which states that high-vivid imagers will outperform low-vivid imagers during the execution of a closed motor skill. However these results support previous conclusions found byCorlett et al. (1989), Taktek et al. (2004), and also Taktek and Rigal (2005). The principal reason put forward with regards to the absence of correlation between the imagery capacities and motor performance relates to the validity weakness of the QVIM. To this reason could be added other impressions expressed by the participants of the present study: (a) The complexity of the scale measure of the QVIM, which is composed of 24 items evaluated on 5 Likert points for each imagery perspective (internal and external); (b) the length of the QVIM procedure (75 to 85 minutes), which was a source of disinterest and distraction; and (c) the subjectivity of the evaluation of the clearness and vividness of his proper mental images of movement in response to the 24 items of the QVIM.
The experimental task of the present study (an underarm throw) corresponds to the criteria underlined by Schmidt’s (1975) motor schema theory (see also Shapiro & Schmidt, 1982; Taktek, 2000, in press-a, in press-b;Taktek & Hochman, 2004; Van Rossum, 1987, 1990). In addition the improvement of performance from the initial pretest phase to the subsequent posttest and/or transfer phase shows probably that this experimental task relies on the participant mental imagery capacity. Therefore, the absence of correlation between the QVIM and the participants’ performance is more likely due to the fact that this questionnaire is not valid for use with 8-to-10-year-old children. Therefore the results of the present study support those found by several researchers (Corlett et al., 1989; Hall et al., 1992; Ryan & Simons, 1981; Taktek & Rigal, 2005; Taktek et al., 2004) and suggest that, although it could be administered to a wide range of participants (as underlined by Fournier et al., 1994 and also Isaac et al., 1986), the QVIM should be adapted for use to the level of children 8-to-10-years of age.
Gender’s Mental Imagery Capacity and Motor Performance During Retention and Transfer of a Closed Motor Task
The results of the ANOVAs applied to the scores of the QVIM revealed that the imagery perspectives were homogenous between the six experimental groups and thus, satisfied the requirements of the mental imagery research assumption (Decety & Mick, 1988; Hall et al., 1992; Taktek, 2004). Moreover, these results showed that the imagery perspectives (internal vs. external) were equivalent between genders and that, only for boys, the internal imagery perspective was significantly more vivid than the external imagery perspective. These results do not support those of Campos and Péretz (1988). In fact, the latter found that “women gave higher scores on vividness of movement imagery than men” (p. 608) and that the external imagery perspective was significantly more vivid than the internal perspective. The inconsistencies of these results are more likely due to the age of participants as well as the version of Questionnaire. Whereas in the present study the participants were aged between 8 and 10 years old and used the QVIM (in French), in Campos and Péretz’s study, the participants were aged between 18 and 23 years old and employed the VMIQ (English original version). However, the results of the present study seem to be more congruent with those of Fishburne’s (1990) study in terms of the equivalence between the visual or kinesthetic imagery of children.
As for the motor performance, the gender variable did not show any significant difference during the experimental phases (pretest, treatment, posttest, and transfer). These results reject the last hypotheses of the present study, which states that boys produce higher performance than girls. The experimental task of this study relies on dynamic imagery capacities rather than static imagery capacities because the parameters of movement (force and space) relate to a motor action, notably an underarm tennis ball throw. Because the dynamic mental capacities of boys and girls were equivalent during each experimental phase (pretest, posttest, and transfer), the results reported by Linn and Peterson (1985) and also Harshman and Paivio (1987) might apply to those revealed by the present study. Nevertheless, it is important to specify that the dynamic imagery capacity could be developed similarly with boys and girls (Taktek & Rigal, 2005; Taktek et al., 2004).
The improvement of performance from the initial pretest phase to the subsequent posttest phase shows probably that boys and girls succeeded, during the treatment phase, to form the appropriate motor schema’s parameters (Schmidt, 1975; Van Rossum, 1987, 1990). However, the decrease of performance from posttest to transfer could be explained by the fact that boys as well as girls were not able to deal with the high contextual interference caused by the simultaneous control of precisions at the level of distance and force during the new transfer task. As stipulated by the experimental protocol of the present study, the movement parameters (space and force) proposed, during the transfer phase were respectively longer (250 cm) and heavier (150g) than those employed during the initial pretest phase or posttest phase (200 cm and 50g). Therefore, the significantly lower performance produced, during the transfer phase compared to the posttest phase could simply emerge from the increase of the throwing distance and ball weight. Hence, boys and girls were able to built a relationship between the target distance, ball weight, and force of throw when the distance was short and the weight light rather than the opposite (Taktek & Rigal, 2005).
Further studies should be conducted to identify more finely and precisely the characteristics for each mental imagery type (kinesthetic vs. visual) and to explore more in depth their effects in pragmatic motor learning settings, notably during real training and/or competition condition, in which the learner is in concomitant interaction with his teammates, protagonists, referee, coach, spectators, and so forth and also the dynamic and spatiotemporal circumstances of a perpetually moving environment (Ahsen, 2001; Gentile, Higgings, Miller, & Rosen, 1975; Schmidt & Lee, 2005). These studies should give more consideration to transfer because most only examine retention. In addition, a large number of trials should be introduced during the acquisition phase (treatment) to allow a substantial improvement of performance and to ensure that motor schema formation and learning had occurred for all experimental groups, as suggested by the schema theory (Schmidt, 1975; Schmidt & Lee, 2005; Shapiro & Schmidt, 1982). Finally, manipulation checks should be employed in future studies dealing with the mental imagery hypothesis to determine if the participants were using imagery as instructed (Goss et al., 1986; Housner & Hoffman, 1981).
References
Show less
Endereço para correspondência:
Khaled Taktek, School of Education, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, P3E 2C6 E-mail: ktaktek@laurentian.ca
Assunto: Imagery (principal); Kinesthetic Perception (principal); Motor Performance (principal); Retention (principal); Visual Perception (principal); Childhood Development
Classificação: 2820: Cognitive & Perceptual Development
Idade: Childhood (birth-12 yrs) School Age (6-12 yrs)
População: Human Male Female
Identificador (palavra-chave): mental imagery kinesthetic imagery visual imagery motor performance retention young children
Teste e medida: Laterality Questionnaire–French Version, Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire
Metodologia: Empirical Study, Quantitative Study
Título: Visual versus kinesthetic mental imagery: Efficacy for the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in young children.
Autor: Taktek, Khaled1; Zinsser, Nathaniel2; St-John, Bob31 School of Education, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada ktaktek@laurentian.ca2 Performance Enhancement Program, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, US3 Department of Military Psychology & Leadership, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada
Endereço de e-mail do autor: ktaktek@laurentian.ca
Indivíduo de contato: Taktek, Khaled, School of Education, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, P3E 2C6, Canada, ktaktek@laurentian.ca
Título da publicação: Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale
Volume: 62
Edição: 3
Páginas: 174-187
Data de publicação: Sep 2008
Formato coberto: Electronic
Editora: Educational Publishing Foundation
País de publicação: United States
ISSN: 1196-1961
eISSN: 1878-7290
Revisado por especialistas: Sim
Idioma: Inglês
Tipo de documento: Journal, Journal Article, Peer Reviewed Journal
Número de referências: 117
Histórico de publicações :
Data da aceitação: 27 Nov 2007
Data do primeiro envio: 17 Nov 2006
DOI: http://dx.doi.org.vlibdb.vcccd.edu/10.1037/1196-1961.62.3.174
Data de lançamento: 08 Set 2008 (PsycINFO); 08 Set 2008 (PsycARTICLES)
Data de correção: 27 Aug 2012 (PsycINFO)
Número de registro: 2008-12225-005
ID PubMed: 18778146
ID do documento ProQuest: 614526114
URL do documento: http://search.proquest.com.vlibdb.vcccd.edu/docview/614526114?accountid=39859
Copyright: © Canadian Psychological Association 2008
Base de dados: PsycARTICLES
Bibliografia
Estilo de referência bibliográfica: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
Taktek, K., Zinsser, N., & St-John, B. (2008). Visual versus kinesthetic mental imagery: Efficacy for the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in young children. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 62(3), 174-187. doi: http://dx.doi.org.vlibdb.vcccd.edu/10.1037/1196-1961.62.3.174
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDERCLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernowAlso, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|