Bilateral transfer of motor performance as a function of motor imagery training: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wan X Yao; Sha Ge; John Q Zhang; Parisa Hemmat; Bo Y Jiang; Xiao J Liu; Xing Lu; Zayd Yaghi; Guang H Yue

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1187175

Bilateral transfer of motor performance as a function of motor imagery training: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Front Psychol. 2023 Jun 2:14:1187175. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1187175. eCollection 2023.

Authors

Wan X Yao¹, Sha Ge², John Q Zhang¹, Parisa Hemmat¹, Bo Y Jiang³, Xiao J Liu⁴, Xing Lu⁴, Zayd Yaghi¹, Guang H Yue^{5

6}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Kinesiology, College for Health, Community, and Policy, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, United States.
² College of Sports Science, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China.
³ School of Public Health, Jilin Medical University, Jilin, China.
⁴ College of Art, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, China.
⁵ Center for Mobility and Rehabilitation Engineering Research, Kessler Foundation, West Orange, NJ, United States.
⁶ Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, United States.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of mental imagery training (MIT) in promoting bilateral transfer (BT) of motor performance for healthy subjects.

Data sources: We searched 6 online-databases (Jul-Dec 2022) using terms: "mental practice," "motor imagery training," "motor imagery practice," "mental training," "movement imagery," "cognitive training," "bilateral transfer," "interlimb transfer," "cross education," "motor learning," "strength," "force" and "motor performance."

Study selection and data extraction: We selected randomized-controlled studies that examined the effect of MIT on BT. Two reviewers independently determined if each study met the inclusion criteria for the review. Disagreements were resolved through discussion and, if necessary, by a third reviewer. A total of 9 articles out of 728 initially identified studies were chosen for the meta-analysis.

Data synthesis: The meta-analysis included 14 studies for the comparison between MIT and no-exercise control (CTR) and 15 studies for the comparison between MIT and physical training (PT).

Results: MIT showed significant benefit in inducing BT compared to CTR (ES = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.57-0.98). The effect of MIT on BT was similar to that of PT (ES = -0.02, 95% CI = -0.15-0.17). Subgroup analyses showed that internal MIT (IMIT) was more effective (ES = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.57-2.76) than external MIT (EMIT) (ES = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.74-1.17), and mixed-task (ES = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.26-2.11) was more effective than mirror-task (ES = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.14-0.78) and normal-task (ES = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.23-0.90). No significant difference was found between transfer from dominant limb (DL) to non-dominant limb (NDL) (ES = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.37-0.97) and NDL to DL (ES = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.59-1.15).

Conclusion: This review concludes that MIT can serve as a valuable alternative or supplement to PT in facilitating BT effects. Notably, IMIT is preferable to EMIT, and interventions incorporating tasks that have access to both intrinsic and extrinsic coordinates (mixed-task) are preferred over those that involve only one of the two coordinates (mirror-task or normal-task). These findings have implications for rehabilitation of patients such as stroke survivors.

Keywords: bilateral transfer; cross education; interlimb transfer; mental practice; motor imagery training; motor learning; motor performance; muscle strength.

Publication types

Review