Literature review
Sport Psychology: from Evidence to Application (B_SPORTPSYEV)
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Aanbevolen voor jou
Reacties
Preview tekst
[Think yourself faster;
Can performance be
increased through motor
imagery for time-
crunched speed skaters ]
[word count: 2130]
Abstract
The aim of this paper it to find out if Motor Imagery can be used to improve performance in sub-elite speed skaters with limited time available for physical ice sessions. Motor imagery (MI) is the cognitive rehearsal of an action without overt motor execution (Guillot et al., 2012), and could be a potential practical method to increase performance despite being short on time. However, there is no research available to see if speed skaters can increase performance using MI.
When conducting MI, it’s important to take the physical abilities and experiences into account to establish ‘functional equivalence’, overlap between imagery and action. Considered that the skating technique is a complex movement using the PETTLEP model MI can be made more physical to achieve higher amounts of functional equivalence.
ROEL BOEK
2623712
05-12-
Although theoretical, and more specific research regarding MI and speedskating performance is needed, a set of guidelines for using the PETTLEP model as sub-elite speed skater is constructed.
Introduction
Just like life, the world of competitive sports does not always seem fair. Some elite athletes can focus all their time, energy and resources on improving as an athlete. For most sub-elite athletes this is not the case, and they have to balance a busy training schedule with other means to make a living. This means it’s not always possible to increase training hours to reach the top. Some sports mostly trickle down to the physical aspect (e. cycling, weight-lifting), whereas others require a lot of sport specific skills (e. hockey, speed skating) The peculiar technique of speed skating makes it an interesting sport from the scientific perspective, since it normally requires a lot of time to perfect the speed skating technique (Konings et al., 2014).
A potential practical method to increase performance despite being short on time could be Motor Imagery (MI). Motor imagery (MI) is the cognitive rehearsal of an action without overt motor execution (Guillot et al., 2012). The cortical and subcortical areas in the brain show a lot of overlap during both motor imagery and motor execution (Dechent et al., 2004; Debarnot et al., 2011), meaning there are similarities between executed and imagined movements. Frank et al. (2016) showed the positive influence of MI practice on the representation structure of complex actions. A combination of physical and mental practice would lead to better structure and elaborate representations, compared to physical practice alone.
A lot of different MI approaches have been established over the years, giving guidelines as to why, when, where and how athletes should use imagery, as well as what they imagine, each with their own strengths and weaknesses (Holmes & Collins, 2001; Guillot & Collet, 2008). However, no specific guidelines for MI strategies to master the speed skating technique are available in the current literature. There is some MI research done with speed skaters being the subject, however this mainly focused on the autonomic nervous system response, and not the increase in skill or performance (Osihi et al., 2000; Osihi & Maeshima, 2004).
When comparing functional neural overlap between imagery and action, most studies have used easy tasks and often in non-sport related situations, like finger taps (Nyberg et al., 2006; Liao et al., 2014). As mentioned before, seed skating is a very complex action and it appears to be physical experience that is the factor determining the limitations of imagery (Olsson & Nyberg, 2010). For these easy tasks there is likely sufficient physical experience, but regarding the speed skating technique the athlete already has to know how to physically perform, and thus make the brain believe that they are actually performing it.
So even though MI has been an important subject of scientific research over the last few decades and has earned its place in some applied sports settings, little is known in the context of speed skating and the level of expertise required. The aim of this paper it to find out if Motor Imagery can be used to improve performance in sub-elite speed skaters with limited time available for physical ice sessions. First, I will discuss the level of physical skill required in order to perform imagery with a high degree of functional equivalence. Second, I will look into the available literature regarding MI and its effect on coordination patterns and complex movements and search for strategies for applied sports setting, i. speed skating. This will result in a set of guidelines sub-elite speed skaters and their coaches can use to apply MI in their training practice.
If you can’t do it, you won’t think it
An important factor for the applicability of MI is sport experience and the familiarity with the skill. In a study by Olsson et al. (2008) a group of high jumpers was compared to a group of inexperienced peers trying to mentally perform the same high jump task while being fMRI scanned. Only the experienced group of high jumpers was able to activate motor regions during the imagery, whereas the novices activated regions in the brain that are not used during exercise, such as the visual and parietal region. To establish overlap between imagery and action, it’s thus important that there’s already familiarity with the movement based on previous physical training. “If you cannot perform an action physically, you will not be able to think it mentally” (Olsson & Nyberg, 2010). When conducting imagery, it’s important to take the specificity of the image being created into account, as the representation of the future movement that is made is based on past events and neural structures.
It could be argued that elite athletes have a higher amount of motor control, and thus making it easier for them to imagine certain movements as well. However, Wei and Luo (2010) found that experts utilized imagery more efficiently than novices but only for the activity in which they had expertise; Using fMRI they compared 12 professional divers and 12 normal people without extensive training in both imagery of professional skills as regular motor skills. The professionals showed a different cerebral activity pattern when imaging experience-related motor tasks, but these differences were not found when performing normal motor tasks. The
Physical training has been established to be superior to mental practice, but mental practice has been shown to be better than no practice at all (Driskell et al., 1994). When incorporated in an adequate physical training schedule there seems to be a place for MI training for speed skaters when done properly.
Internal vs. External
Traditionally, a clear distinction can be made between an internal first-person perspective also known as Implicit Motor Imagery (IMI), and an external third person perspective when using MI, also known as Explicit Motor Imagery (EMI) (Glisky et al., 1996). In a first-person perspective, it is imperative to get the impression that the action is executed (but not actually performed), contrary to a third-person perspective where it’s like watching yourself on video or in birds eye view. (Olsson & Nyberg, 2010). Where EMI is mostly used in rehabilitation (Lopez et al., 2019), athletes performing MI are advised use both perspectives depending on the goal of the MI, using IMI to develop and improve performance of an already internalized movement (Féry, 2003), and EMI when learning, and subsequently improving, a movement sequence of recent acquisition (Callow et al., 2017)
PETTLEP
The PETTLEP model (Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Learning Emotion, Perspective) (Holmes & Collins, 2001) has gained much research support over the last few years (Guillot & Collet, 2008; Collins & Carson, 2017). When using this model, a high level of functional equivalence can be achieved. Smith et al. (2007) had 40 gymnasts train to perform a full turning jump on the beam, a skill that is graded level C, which is the most difficult and complex to learn according to the Official Code for British Gymnastics. They were divided in 4 groups, 1 doing only physical training, 1 performing PETTLEP based imagery, 1 stimulus imagery group and 1 control group. The PETTLEP group showed a bigger increase to the stimulus group (all be it smaller than the physical practice group), so it appears PETTLEP has a greater impact on sports performance for complex movements than the more traditional, stimulus-based interventions that are performed in a non-sport-specific environment and without sports clothing. In contrary to the more traditional view of imagery as a separate psychological skill practiced separately from physical practice, the PETTLEP model strives for a close integration between imagery and action, or as Wakefield and Smith (2012) put it: “PETTLEP conceptualizes physical practice and imagery as being on a continuum, and posits
that the closer towards the physical end of the continuum that imagery interventions lie, the more effective they are likely to be”. By making the imagery more physical, higher amounts of functional equivalence can be achieved.
Conclusion and Guidelines
To see if motor imagery can be used to improve performance in sub-elite speed skaters with limited time available for physical ice sessions it was assessed if sub-elite athletes are deemed capable for MI, and if MI can be used for complex movements like the speed skating technique.
When conducting MI, it’s important to take the physical abilities and experiences into account to establish ‘functional equivalence’, so this should be no problem for sub-elite athletes that are already quite sufficient with respect to skating technique.
Even though there is no evidence for the use of MI for improving speed skating performance, based on other complex skills it can be assumed that MI would be a useful tool to increase performance. Even though more research into this topic is advised, I constructed the following guidelines regarding MI for sub-elite speedskaters that are short on time;
Guidelines
These guidelines are made with a time constrained sub-elite athlete in mind, trying to increase performance by adding MI to an already proper physical training schedule to gain maximal efficacy. Using the PETTLEP model, based on the similarity in complexity to gymnastics (both level 15 in the two-dimensional model for complexity by Lindsay et al. (2021)), the following things should be taken in consideration when writing and performing a MI script.
Physical; Make the experience as physical similar to the actual action as possible, wear a speedskating suit and perform the MI while wearing skates (Smith et al., 2007) Environment; even though MI is most effective in the environment where actual task will be performed, since it’s about adding training with little extra time it’s advised to conduct imagery at home, since if there would be time to go to the ice rink it would make more sense to conduct an extra physical training. The use of video recordings could help replicating the environment at home (Smith and Holmes, 2004)
References
Callow, N., Jiang, D., Roberts, R. & Edwards, M. G. (2017). Kinesthetic Imagery Provides Additive Benefits to Internal Visual Imagery on Slalom Task Performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 39(1), 81–86. doi/10.1123/jsep.2016-
Collins, D. & Carson, H. J. (2017). The future for PETTLEP: a modern perspective on an effective and established tool. Current Opinion in Psychology, 16, 12–16. doi/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.
Cumming, J. & Hall, C. (2002). Deliberate imagery practice: the development of imagery skills in competitive athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(2), 137–145. doi/10.1080/
Debarnot, U., Clerget, E. & Olivier, E. (2011). Role of the Primary Motor Cortex in the Early Boost in Performance Following Mental Imagery Training. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e26717. doi/10.1371/journal.pone.
Dechent, P., Merboldt, K. D. & Frahm, J. (2004). Is the human primary motor cortex involved in motor imagery? Cognitive Brain Research, 19(2), 138–144. doi/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.11.
Driskell, J. E., Copper, C. & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 481–492. doi/10.1037/0021- 9010.79.
Féry, Y. A. (2003). Differentiating visual and kinesthetic imagery in mental practice. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 57(1), 1–10. doi/10.1037/h
Frank, C., Land, W. M. & Schack, T. (2016). Perceptual-Cognitive Changes During Motor Learning: The Influence of Mental and Physical Practice on Mental Representation, Gaze Behavior, and Performance of a Complex Action. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.
Guillot, A. & Collet, C. (2008). Construction of the Motor Imagery Integrative Model in Sport: a review and theoretical investigation of motor imagery use. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 31–44. doi/10.1080/
Holmes, P. S. & Collins, D. J. (2001). The PETTLEP Approach to Motor Imagery: A Functional Equivalence Model for Sport Psychologists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(1), 60–83. doi/10.1080/
Konings, M. J., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., Stoter, I. K., van der Meer, D., Otten, E. & Hettinga, F. J. (2014). Performance Characteristics of Long-Track Speed Skaters: A Literature Review. Sports Medicine, 45(4), 505–516. doi/10.1007/s40279-014-0298-z
Kraeutner, S. N., MacKenzie, L. A., Westwood, D. A. & Boe, S. G. (2016). Characterizing skill acquisition through motor imagery with no prior physical practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 257–265. doi/10.1037/xhp
Liao, K., Xiao, R., Gonzalez, J. & Ding, L. (2014). Decoding Individual Finger Movements from One Hand Using Human EEG Signals. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e85192. doi/10.1371/journal.pone.
Lindsay, R. S., Larkin, P., Kittel, A. & Spittle, M. (2021). Mental imagery training programs for developing sport-specific motor skills: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1–22. doi/10.1080/17408989.2021.
López, N. D., Monge Pereira, E., Centeno, E. J. & Miangolarra Page, J. C. (2019). Motor imagery as a complementary technique for functional recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 26(8), 576–587. doi/10.1080/10749357.2019.
Martha L. Glisky, Jean M. Williams & John F. Kihlstrom. (1996). Internal and External Mental Imagery Perspectives and Performance on Two Tasks. Journal of sport behavior, 19(1), 3.
Nyberg, L., Eriksson, J., Larsson, A. & Marklund, P. (2006). Learning by doing versus learning by thinking: An fMRI study of motor and mental training. Neuropsychologia, 44(5), 711–717. doi/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.08.
Oishi, K., Kasai, T. & Maeshima, T. (2000). Autonomic Response Specificity during Motor Imagery. Journal of PHYSIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY and Applied Human Science, 19(6), 255–261. doi/10.2114/jpa.19.
Oishi, K. & Maeshima, T. (2004). Autonomic Nervous System Activities During Motor Imagery in Elite Athletes. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 21(3), 170–179. doi/10.1097/00004691-200405000-
Olsson, C. J., Jonsson, B. & Nyberg, L. (2008). Internal imagery training in active high jumpers. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 133–140. doi/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00625.x
Olsson, C. J. & Nyberg, L. (2010). Motor imagery: if you can’t do it, you won’t think it. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 20(5), 711–715. doi/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01101.x
Smith, D. & Holmes, P. (2004). The Effect of Imagery Modality on Golf Putting Performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26(3), 385–395. doi/10.1123/jsep.26.3.
Smith, D., Wright, C., Allsopp, A. & Westhead, H. (2007). It’s All in the Mind: PETTLEP- Based Imagery and Sports Performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 80–92. doi/10.1080/
Literature review
Vak: Sport Psychology: from Evidence to Application (B_SPORTPSYEV)
Universiteit: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
- Ontdek meer van:
