Synchronous action observation and motor imagery may not always represent the optimal form of action simulation: a commentary on Eaves et al. (2022)

3Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

(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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wright, D. J., & Holmes, P. S. (2024, September 1). Synchronous action observation and motor imagery may not always represent the optimal form of action simulation: a commentary on Eaves et al. (2022). Psychological Research. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01894-w

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free