Inhibition in motor imagery: a novel action mode switching paradigm

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 459-466

  Rieger, Martina ^a   Dahm, Stephan F ^a   Koch, Iring ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (Austria)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Global inhibition; Inhibition; Motor imagery; Specific inhibition; Trial sequence effects

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGINATION; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; ORIENTATION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGINATION; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; ORIENTATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84976464481     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-016-1095-5     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Adam, J. J., & Koch, I. (2014). Response-repetition effects depend on motor set: evidence for anatomical coding in response selection. Human Movement Science, 33, 172–184.
2. Anguera, J. A., Lyman, K., Zanto, T. P., Bollinger, J., & Gazzaley, A. (2013). Reconciling the influence of task-set switching and motor inhibition processes on stop signal after-effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 649.
3. Bertelson, P. (1965). Serial choice reaction-time as a function of response versus signal-and-response repetition. Nature, 206, 217–218.
4. Calmels, C., Holmes, P., Lopez, E., & Naman, V. (2006). Chronometric comparison of actual and imaged complex movement patterns. Journal of Motor Behavior, 38(5), 339–348.
5. Campos, J. L., Siegle, J. H., Mohler, B. J., Bülthoff, H. H., & Loomis, J. M. (2009). Imagined self-motion differs from perceived self-motion: Evidence from a novel continuous pointing method. PloS One, 4(11), e7793.
6. Cerritelli, B., Maruff, P., Wilson, P., & Currie, J. (2000). The effect of an external load on the force and timing components of mentally represented actions. Behavioural Brain Research, 108(1), 91–96.
7. Dahm, S. F., & Rieger, M. (2016). Cognitive constraints on motor imagery. Psychological Research, 80(2), 235–247.
8. Decety, J. (1996). Do imagined and executed actions share the same neural substrate? Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 87–93.
9. Guillot, A., & Collet, C. (2005). Duration of mentally simulated movement: A review. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37(1), 10–20.
10. Guillot, A., Di Rienzo, F., MacIntyre, T., Moran, A., & Collet, C. (2012). Imagining is not doing but involves specific motor commands: a review of experimental data related to motor inhibition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 247.
11. Jeannerod, M. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(2), 229–245.
12. Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching - A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874.
13. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 1–14.
14. Lebon, F., Byblow, W. D., Collet, C., Guillot, A., & Stinear, C. M. (2012). The modulation of motor cortex excitability during motor imagery depends on imagery quality. European Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 323–331.
15. Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity – Common underlying mechanisms. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.
16. MacLeod, C. M., Dodd, M. D., Sheard, E. D., Wilson, D. E., & Bibi, U. (2003). In opposition to inhibition. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 43, 163–214.
17. Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2005). Sticky rules: integration between abstract rules and specific actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 337–350.
18. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.
19. Munzert, J., Lorey, B., & Zentgraf, K. (2009). Cognitive motor processes: The role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain Research Reviews, 60(2), 306–326.
20. Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Ziessler, M. (2014). Using tools with real and imagined tool movements. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 515.
21. Randerath, J., Valyear, K. F., Hood, A., & Frey, S. H. (2015). Two routes to the same action: an action repetition priming study. Journal of Motor Behavior, 47(2), 142–152.
22. Rieger, M., & Gauggel, S. (1999). Inhibitory after-effects in the stop signal paradigm. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 509–518.
23. Rieger, M., Martinez, F., & Wenke, D. (2011). Imagery of errors in typing. Cognition, 121(2), 163–175.
24. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 92–105.
25. Soetens, E., Boer, L. C., & Hueting, J. E. (1985). Expectancy or automatic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 598–616.
26. Tipper, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 54(2), 321–343.
27. Verbruggen, F., Logan, G. D., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2008). Short-term aftereffects of response inhibition: repetition priming or between-trial control adjustments? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 413–426.