Motor imagery training of goal-directed reaching in relation to imagery of reaching and grasping in healthy people

Joanna Mencel, Jarosław Marusiak, Anna Jaskólska, Łukasz Kamiński, Marek Kurzyński, Andrzej Wołczowski, Artur Jaskólski, Katarzyna Kisiel-Sajewicz, Joanna Mencel, Jarosław Marusiak, Anna Jaskólska, Łukasz Kamiński, Marek Kurzyński, Andrzej Wołczowski, Artur Jaskólski, Katarzyna Kisiel-Sajewicz

Abstract

The study aimed to determine whether four weeks of motor imagery training (MIT) of goal-directed reaching (reaching to grasp task) would affect the cortical activity during motor imagery of reaching (MIR) and grasping (MIG) in the same way. We examined cortical activity regarding event-related potentials (ERPs) in healthy young participants. Our study also evaluated the subjective vividness of the imagery. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the relationship between the subjective assessment of motor imagery (MI) ability to reach and grasp and the cortical activity during those tasks before and after training to understand the underlying neuroplasticity mechanisms. Twenty-seven volunteers participated in MIT of goal-directed reaching and two measurement sessions before and after MIT. During the sessions 128-channel electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded during MIR and MIG. Also, participants assessed the vividness of the MI tasks using a visual analog scale (VAS). The vividness of imagination improved significantly (P < .05) after MIT. A repeated measures ANOVA showed that the task (MIR/MIG) and the location of electrodes had a significant effect on the ERP's amplitude (P < .05). The interaction between the task, location, and session (before/after MIT) also had a significant effect on the ERP's amplitude (P < .05). Finally, the location of electrodes and the interaction between location and session had a significant effect on the ERP's latency (P < .05). We found that MIT influenced the EEG signal associated with reaching differently than grasping. The effect was more pronounced for MIR than for MIG. Correlation analysis showed that changes in the assessed parameters due to MIT reduced the relationship between the subjective evaluation of imagining and the EEG signal. This finding means that the subjective evaluation of imagining cannot be a simple, functional insight into the bioelectrical activity of the cerebral cortex expressed by the ERPs in mental training. The changes we noted in ERPs after MIT may benefit the use of non-invasive EEG in the brain-computer interface (BCI) context.Trial registration: NCT04048083.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scheme of the experimental protocol, consisting of familiarization session 0 and two similar measurement sessions before and after motor imagery training.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Position of the participant during motor imagery training of reaching to grasp a book task. The participant performed this movement physically three times with the right and left upper limbs before beginning mental rehearsals, paying attention to the kinesthetic sensations that accompany this movement. Written informed consent for publication of the images was obtained from the participant.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Boxplot representing median values, 25–75% range (box), and min–max range (bars) of vividness expressed by visual analog scale (VAS) score (y-axis) of motor imagery of reaching (MIR) and motor imagery of grasping (MIG) before and after four weeks of training (MIR4, MIG4 respectively). The lower number, the higher the vividness*—P = 0.002 (assessed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Individual patterns of ERP during motor imagery of reaching (MIR) and motor imagery of grasping (MIG) for chosen electrodes and measurement sessions (before and after). The vertical lines indicate the time of occurrence of the trigger, and the arrows indicate the ERP amplitude.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Heatmap depicting the P values of pairwise comparison for ERP amplitude between motor imagery of reaching (MIR) and motor imagery of grasping (MIG) before and after four weeks of motor imagery training.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Heatmap depicting the P values of pairwise comparison for ERP amplitude between measurement sessions (before and after training) for motor imagery of reaching (MIR to MIR4) and motor imagery of grasping (MIG to MIG4).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Heatmap depicting the P values of pairwise comparison for ERP latency between measurement sessions (before and after training) for motor imagery of reaching (MIR to MIR4) and motor imagery of grasping (MIG to MIG4).

References

    1. Jeannerod M. Mental imagery in the motor context. Neuropsych. 1994;33(11):1419–1432.
    1. Avanzino L, et al. Motor cortical plasticity induced by motor learning through mental practice. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2015;9:105.
    1. Decety J, et al. Mapping motor representations with PET. Nature. 1994;371:600–602.
    1. Fadiga L, et al. Corticospinal excitability is specifically modulated by motor imagery: a magnetic stimulation study. Neuropsychologia. 1999;37:147–158.
    1. Gerardin E, et al. Partially overlapping neural networks for real and imagined hand movements. Cereb. Cortex. 2000;10:1093–1104.
    1. Hanakawa T, et al. Functional properties of brain areas associated with motor execution and imagery. J. Neurophysiol. 2003;89:989–1002.
    1. Jeannerod M, Decety J. Mental motor imagery: a window into the representational stages of action. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 1995;5:727–732.
    1. Solodkin A, Hlustik P, Chen EE, Small SL. Fine modulation in network activation during motor execution and motor imagery. Cereb. Cortex. 2004;14:1246–1255.
    1. Stephan KM, et al. Functional anatomy of the mental representation of upper extremity movements in healthy subjects. J. Neurophysiol. 1995;73:373–386.
    1. Cabral-Sequeira AS, Coelho DB, Teixeira LA. Motor imagery training promotes motor learning in adolescents with cerebral palsy: comparison between left and right hemiparesis. Exp. Brain Res. 2016;234(6):1515–1524.
    1. Mokienko OA, et al. Increased motor cortex excitability during motor imagery in brain-computer interface in trained subjects. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 2013;7:168.
    1. Sobierajewicz J, Przekoracka-Krawczyk A, Jaśkowski W, Verwey W, van der Lubbe R. The influence of motor imagery on the learning of a fine hand motor skill. Exp. Brain Res. 2016;235(1):305–320.
    1. Mulder T. Motor imagery and action observation: cognitive tools for rehabilitation. J. Neural. Transm. 2007;114(10):1265–1278.
    1. Ietswaart M. Mental practice with motor imagery in stroke recovery: randomized controlled trial of efficacy. Brain. 2011;134:1373–1386.
    1. Harris JE, Hebert A. Utilization of motor imagery in upper limb rehabilitation: a systematic scoping review. Clin. Rehabil. 2015;29(11):1092–1107.
    1. Ruffino C, Gaveau J, Papaxanthis C, Lebon F. An acute session of motor imagery training induces use-dependent plasticity. Sci. Rep. 2019;9(1):20002. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56628-z.
    1. Hanakawa T. Organizing motor imageries. Neurosci. Res. 2016;104:56–63.
    1. Kho AY, Liu KPY, Chung RCK. Meta-analysis on the effect of mental imagery on motor recovery of the hemiplegic upper extremity function. Aust. Occup. Ther. J. 2014;61(2):38–48.
    1. Ortner R, Irimia DC, Scharinger J, Guger C. A motor imagery based brain-computer interface for stroke rehabilitation. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2012;181:319–323.
    1. Teo WP, Chew E. Is motor-imagery brain-computer interface feasible in stroke rehabilitation? PM R. 2014;6(8):723–728.
    1. Schwarz A, Pereira JM, Kobler RM, Muller-Putz GR. Unimanual and bimanual reach-and-grasp actions can be decoded from human EEG. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2020;67(6):1684–1695.
    1. Shih JJ, Krusienski DJ, Wolpaw JR. Brain-computer interfaces in medicine. Mayo. Clin. Proc. 2012;87(3):268–279.
    1. Pfurtscheller, G., Da Silva, F. L. EEG-Event-Related Desynchronization (ERD) and Event-Related Synchronization. Electroencephalography - Basic Principles, Clinical Applications and Related Fields. 6th Edition. ed. Philadelphia: Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2011. pp. 935–948.
    1. Ofner P, Schwarz A, Pereira J, Müller-Putz GR. Upper limb movements can be decoded from the time-domain of low-frequency EEG. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(8):e0182578. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182578.
    1. Schwarz A, Ofner P, Pereira J, Sburlea AI, Müller-Putz GR. Decoding natural reach-and-grasp actions from human EEG. J. Neural. Eng. 2018;15(1):016005. doi: 10.1088/1741-2552/aa8911.PMID:28853420.
    1. Pfurtscheller G, Guger C, Müller G, Krausz G, Neuper C. Brain oscillations control hand orthosis in a tetraplegic. Neurosci. Lett. 2000;292(3):211–214.
    1. Siemionow V, Yue GH, Ranganathan VK, Liu JZ, Sahgal V. Relationship between motor activity-related cortical potential and voluntary muscle activation. Exp. Brain Res. 2000;133:303–311.
    1. Yao WX, Ranganathan VK, Allexandre D, Siemionow V, Yue GH. Kinesthetic imagery training of forceful muscle contractions increases brain signal and muscle strength. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013;7:561.
    1. Galdo-Alvarez S, Carrillo-de-la-Peña MT. ERP evidence of MI activation without motor response execution. NeuroReport. 2004;15(13):2067–2070.
    1. Ranganathan VK, Siemionow V, Liu JZ, Sahgal V, Yue GH. From mental power to muscle power-gaining strength by using the mind. Neuropsych. 2004;42:944–956.
    1. Sur S, Sinha VK. Event-related potential: An overview. Ind Psychiatry J. 2009;18(1):70–73.
    1. Burgos PI, Cruz G, Hawkes T, Rojas-Sepúlveda I, Woollacott M. Behavioral and ERP correlates of long-term physical and mental training on a demanding switch task. Front Psychol. 2021;12:569025.
    1. Espinet, S.D., Anderson, J.E., Zelazo, P.D. N2 amplitude as a neural marker of executive function in young children: an ERP study of children who switch versus perseverate on the Dimensional Change Card Sort. Dev Cogn Neurosci. S49-S58 (2012).
    1. Staines WR, Padilla M, Knight RT. Frontal-parietal event-related potential changes associated with practicing a novel visuomotor task. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 2002;13(2):195–202.
    1. Allami N, et al. Neurophysiological correlates of visuo-motor learning through mental and physical practice. Neuropsychologia. 2014;55:6–14.
    1. Snoek GJ, IJzerman MJ, Hermens HJ, Maxwell D, Biering-Sorensen F. Survey of the needs of patients with spinal cord injury: impact and priority for improvement in hand function in tetraplegics. Spinal Cord. 2004;42(9):526–532.
    1. Maier M, Ballester BR, Verschure PFMJ. Principles of neurorehabilitation after stroke based on motor learning and brain plasticity mechanisms. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2019;13:74.
    1. Anderson KD. Targeting recovery: Priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J. Neurotrauma. 2004;21(10):1371–1383.
    1. Kandel, E.R., Schwartz, J.H. & Jessell, T.M. Principles of neural science. (McGraw-Hill Medical. 2000).
    1. Glover S, Wall MB, Smith AT. Distinct cortical networks support the planning and online control of reaching-to-grasp in humans. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2012;35(6):909–915.
    1. Debarnot U, Sperduti M, Di Rienzo F, Guillot A. Experts bodies, experts minds: How physical and mental training shape the brain. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014;8:280.
    1. Mencel J, et al. Motor imagery training of reaching-to-grasp movement supplemented by a virtual environment in an individual with congenital bilateral transverse upper-limb deficiency. Front. Psychol. 2021;12:638780.
    1. Zabicki A, et al. Subjective vividness of motor imagery has a neural signature in human premotor and parietal cortex. Neuroimage. 2019;197:273–283.
    1. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsych. 1971;9:97–113.
    1. Gregg M, Hall C, Butler A. The MIQ-RS: A suitable option for examining movement imagery ability. Evid. Based Complement Alternat. Med. 2010;7(2):249–257.
    1. Williams SE, et al. Further validation and development of the movement imagery questionnaire. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2012;34(5):621–646.
    1. Ruby P, Decety J. Effect of subjective perspective taking during simulation of action: A PET investigation of agency. Nat. Neurosci. 2001;4(5):546–550.
    1. Schuster C, et al. Best practice for motor imagery: A systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines. BMC Med. 2011;9:75.
    1. Holmes PS, Collins DJ. The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery: A functional equivalence model for sport psychologist. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. Ther. 2001;13(1):60–83.
    1. Gentili RJ, Papaxanthis C. Laterality effects in motor learning by mental practice in right-handers. Neuroscience. 2015;297:231–242.
    1. Oostenveld R, Praamstra P. The five percent electrode system for high-resolution EEG and ERP measurements. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2001;112:713–719.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods. 2007;39:175–191.
    1. Heller GZ, Manuguerra M, Chow R. How to analyze the visual analogue scale: Myths, truths and clinical relevance. Scandinavian J. Pain. 2016;13:67–75.
    1. Hair JJ, Wolfinbarger MC, Ortinau DJ, Bush RP. Essentials of Marketing. Mc Graw-Hill; 2013.
    1. Hétu S, et al. The neural network of motor imagery: An ALE meta-analysis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2013;37(5):930–949.
    1. Binkofski F, et al. Broca’s region subserves imagery of motion: A combined cytoarchitectonic and fMRI study. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2001;11(4):273–285.
    1. Bencivenga F, Sulpizio V, Tullo MG, Galati G. Assessing the effective connectivity of premotor areas during real vs imagined grasping: A DCM-PEB approach. Neuroimage. 2021;230:117806.
    1. Guillot A, et al. Brain activity during visual versus kinesthetic imagery: an fMRI study. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2009;30:2157–2172.
    1. Xu L, et al. Motor execution and motor imagery: A comparison of functional connectivity patterns based on graph theory. Neuroscience. 2014;261:184–194.
    1. Van der Lubbe RHJ, Sobierajewicz J, Jongsma MLA, Verwey WB, Przekoracka-Krawczyk A. Frontal brain areas are more involved during motor imagery than during motor execution/preparation of a response sequence. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2021;164:71–86.
    1. Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Hohnsbein J. ERP components in Go/Nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychol. (Amst) 1999;101(2–3):267–291.
    1. Slagter HA, Davidson RJ, Lutz A. Mental training as a tool in the neuroscientific study of brain and cognitive plasticity. Front Hum. Neurosci. 2011;10(5):17.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe