Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung最新文献

This study aimed to investigate how the cognitive control system resolves conflicts when cognitive and emotional conflicts occur simultaneously, and how it performs. To achieve this, a factorial task-crossing design was employed, combining the spatial Simon task and the face-word emotional interference task, allowing cognitive and emotional conflicts to occur concurrently within a single trial. The results revealed that the Simon cognitive conflict was only associated with N2 and early SP, while it did not affect the amplitude of N450 and late SP. Conversely, the face-word emotional conflict affected the amplitude of N450 and late SP, but had no impact on N2 and early SP. These findings demonstrate the adaptive sequencing organization and domain specificity in cognitive-emotional dual conflict processing, which reflects the precise and flexible orchestration and strategic adjustments of the cognitive control system. The results contribute to a better understanding of the dynamic and temporal processes involved in the cognitive control of multiple conflicts.

Acting in the environment results in both intended and unintended consequences. Action consequences provide feedback about the adequacy of actions while they are in progress and when they are completed and therefore contribute to monitoring actions, facilitate error detection, and are crucial for motor learning. In action imagery, no actual action takes place, and consequently, no actual action consequences are produced. However, imagined action consequences may replace actual action consequences, serving a similar function and facilitating performance improvements akin to that occurring with actual actions. In this paper, we conceptualize action imagery as a simulation based on internal models. During that simulation, forward models predict action consequences. A comparison of predicted and intended action consequences sometimes indicates the occurrence of action errors (or deviations from optimal performance) in action imagery. We review research indicating that action errors are indeed sometimes imagined in action imagery. These results are compatible with the view that action imagery is based on motor simulation but incompatible with the view that action imagery is solely based on abstract knowledge. The outlined framework seems suitable to cover a wide range of action imagery phenomena and can explain action imagery practice effects.

The recent review by Eaves et al. (Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung, 2022) outlines the research conducted to-date on combined action-observation and motor imagery (AOMI), and more specifically, its added benefit to learning. Of interest, these findings have been primarily attributed to the dual action simulation hypothesis, whereby AO and MI activate separable representations for action that may be later merged when they are congruent with one another. The present commentary more closely evaluates this explanation. What's more, we offer an alternative information-based argument where the benefit to learning may be served instead by the availability of key information. Along these lines, we speculate on possible future directions including the need for a transfer design.

In this paper, we discuss a variety of ways in which practising motor actions by means of motor imagery (MI) can be enhanced via synchronous action observation (AO), that is, by AO + MI. We review the available research on the (mostly facilitatory) behavioural effects of AO + MI practice in the early stages of skill acquisition, discuss possible theoretical explanations, and consider several issues related to the choice and presentation schedules of suitable models. We then discuss considerations related to AO + MI practice at advanced skill levels, including expertise effects, practical recommendations such as focussing attention on specific aspects of the observed action, using just-ahead models, and possible effects of the perspective in which the observed action is presented. In section "Coordinative AO + MI", we consider scenarios where the observer imagines performing an action that complements or responds to the observed action, as a promising and yet under-researched application of AO + MI training. In section "The dual action simulation hypothesis of AO + MI", we review the neurocognitive hypothesis that AO + MI practice involves two parallel action simulations, and we consider opportunities for future research based on recent neuroimaging work on parallel motor representations. In section "AO + MI training in motor rehabilitation", we review applications of AO, MI, and AO + MI training in the field of neurorehabilitation. Taken together, this evidence-based, exploratory review opens a variety of avenues for future research and applications of AO + MI practice, highlighting several clear advantages over the approaches of purely AO- or MI-based practice.

(Eaves et al., Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 2022) summary review, showing positive behavioural effects of AOMI interventions, is a welcome addition to the field. Several recent studies, however, have reported that AOMI may be no more beneficial than independent MI, and, for some tasks, may add no benefit beyond that obtained via physical practice. We discuss evidence to balance the narrative but support the pragmatic reasons why AOMI remains a suitable and appealing form of action simulation. We propose that further research interrogation of the discrete AOMI states through a more continuum-based approach could address some of the inconsistent data seen in AOMI research.

In this position paper, the authors support with recent behavioral findings the theory of internal simulations during motor imagery, initiated in the 90's. In this commentary, I will provide additional evidence from other research groups to support this theory and discuss the neurophysiological basis of inhibition (surround inhibition, inhibition within the primary cortex) and internal models (including the cerebellum).

Frank et al.'s (2023) perceptual-cognitive scaffold meaningfully extends the cognitive action architecture approach and we support this interdisciplinary advancement. However, there are theoretical and applied aspects that could be further developed within this research to maximise practical impact across domains such as sport. In particular, there is a need to consider how these mechanisms (1) might critically inform or relate to other prominent theories within sport (e.g., constrained action hypothesis and ecological approaches) and, (2) reflect the real-world challenges experienced by athletes. With these ideas in mind, this commentary aims to stimulate discussion and enhance the translational application of Frank et al.'s research.

The mechanism through which motor imagery practice improves motor performance remains unclear. In this special issue, Rieger et al. propose a model to explain why motor imagery practice improves motor performance. According to their model, motor imagery involves a comparison between intended and predicted action effects, allowing for the modification of the internal model upon detecting errors. I believe that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is a candidate as a brain region responsible for comparing intended and predicted action effects. Evidence supports this hypothesis, as a previous study has observed error-related activity in the ACC preceding incorrect responses (i.e., commission errors) in the Go/No-go task (Bediou et al., 2012, Neuroimage). Therefore, the error-related activity can be induced without any feedback. This fact also sheds light on the mechanisms of brain-computer interface. I believe that this additional literature will enhance Rieger's model.

In a recent Psychological Research article, Eaves et al. (2022) review the literature on how motor imagery (MI) practice combined with action observation (AO) enhances motor performance. The authors propose that the synchronous form of AO and MI (AOMI) affords unique benefits to performance that are not possible when the two interventions are performed asynchronously. We discuss three questions raised by Eaves et al.'s review: (1) are there any clear advantages to synchronous AOMI? (2) Are there super-additive benefits to AOMI, and if so, are they unique to synchronous AOMI? (3) How might coordinative AOMI, in which people imagine complementary actions, facilitate joint actions?

In a recent article entitled "Why motor imagery is not really motoric: towards a re-conceptualization in terms of effect-based action control", Bach et al. nicely renewed the concept of motor equivalence between actual movement and motor imagery (MI), i.e. the mental simulation of an action without its corresponding motor output. Their approach is largely based on behavioral studies and, to a lesser extent, on the literature using cerebral imagery. However, the literature on cortico-spinal circuitry modulation during MI can provide further, interesting aspects. Indeed, when it comes to addressing the motor system, one should consider the whole path from brain region to muscle contraction, including sub-cortical structures such as the spinal circuitry. This commentary aims at bridging this gap by providing supplemental evidence and outlining a complementary approach.