2015•European Journal of Sport ScienceOpen access

Comparing self‐report and mental chronometry measures of motor imagery ability

Sarah Elizabeth Williams, Aymeric Guillot, Franck Di Rienzo, Jennifer Cumming

Open full text 110 citations

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between two of the most common measures of motor imagery ability, self-report ratings, and chronometric assessment. This was done for three types of imagery modalities: external visual imagery (EVI), internal visual imagery (IVI), and kinesthetic imagery (KI). Measures of imagery ability (i.e. self-report and mental chronometry) were also compared across skill levels. Participants (N = 198) completed the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3) to generate self-report ratings. Chronometric assessment was obtained by recording the duration of each MIQ-3 movement imaged and physically performed and then calculating a discrepancy score. There were no significant correlations between self-report and mental chronometry for any of the three motor imagery types (p > .05). When assessing the different types of motor imagery ability using self-report ratings, elite athletes had significantly higher KI than IVI, which was in turn significantly higher than EVI (p < .05). When assessing motor imagery ability using mental chronometry, there were no significant differences in imagery type (p > .05). Findings suggest both measures address different components of MI quality and should be used together to obtain a more comprehensive assessment of motor imagery ability.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The present study investigated the relationship between two of the most common measures of motor imagery ability, self-report ratings, and chronometric assessment. This was done for three types of imagery modalities: external visual imagery (EVI), internal visual imagery (IVI), and kinesthetic imagery (KI). Measures of imagery ability (i.e. self-report and mental chronometry) were also compared across skill levels. Participants (N = 198) completed the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3) to generate self-report ratings. Chronometric assessment was obtained by recording the duration of each MIQ-3 movement imaged and physically performed and then calculating a discrepancy score. There were no significant correlations between self-report and mental chronometry for any of the three motor imagery types (p > .05). When assessing the different types of motor imagery ability using self-report ratings, elite athletes had significantly higher KI than IVI, which was in turn significantly higher than EVI (p < .05). When assessing motor imagery ability using mental chronometry, there were no significant differences in imagery type (p > .05). Findings suggest both measures address different components of MI quality and should be used together to obtain a more comprehensive assessment of motor imagery ability.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 110 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between two of the most common measures of motor imagery ability, self-report ratings, and chronometric assessment. This was done for three types of imagery modalities: external visual imagery (EVI), internal visual imagery (IVI), and kinesthetic imagery (KI). Measures of imagery ability (i.e. self-report and mental chronometry) were also compared across skill levels. Participants (N = 198) completed the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-3 (MIQ-3) to generate self-report ratings. Chronometric assessment was obtained by recording the duration of each MIQ-3 movement imaged and physically performed and then calculating a discrepancy score. There were no significant correlations between self-report and mental chronometry for any of the three motor imagery types (p > .05). When assessing the different types of motor imagery ability using self-report ratings, elite athletes had significantly higher KI than IVI, which was in turn significantly higher than EVI (p < .05). When assessing motor imagery ability using mental chronometry, there were no significant differences in imagery type (p > .05). Findings suggest both measures address different components of MI quality and should be used together to obtain a more comprehensive assessment of motor imagery ability.

Key concepts: Motor imagery, Mental chronometry, Mental image, Psychology, Physical medicine and rehabilitation, Cognitive psychology, Electroencephalography, Brain–computer interface

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparing self‐report and mental chronometry measures of motor imagery ability — Research Paper | ScholarLens