Search

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of observing point-light and video models and physical practice on learning a crouch start., Method: Thirty-two female students were randomly assigned into point-light, video, physical practice, and control groups. They performed 10 trials in pretest, 160 trials in acquisition phase, and 10 trials in 24-hour retention test. Kinematic features and reaction time were measured as dependent variables., Results: Results showed that physical practice group performed better than other groups in reaction time and range of motion of trunk and observational groups performed better than control groups in reaction time and range of motion of knee., Conclusion: The results confirm the positive effects of observational practice on motor learning., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Fundamental to performing actions is the acquisition of motor behaviours. We examined if motor learning, through observational practice, occurs by viewing an agent displaying naturalistic or constant velocity, and whether motion trajectory, as opposed to end-state, information is required. We also investigated if observational practice is sensitive to belief regarding the origin of an agent. Participants had to learn a novel movement sequence timing task, which required upper-limb movements to a series of targets within a pre-specified absolute and relative time goal. Experiment 1 showed learning after viewing naturalistic and constant velocity, but not end-state information. For Experiment 2, in addition to learning the movement sequence, participants observed a series of movement stimuli that were either the trained or new sequences and asked to rate their confidence on whether the observed sequence was the same or different to observational practice. The results indicated that agency belief modulates how naturalistic and constant velocity is coded. This indicated that the processes associated with belief are part of an interpretative predictive coding system where the association between belief and observed motion is determined. When motion is constant velocity, or believed to be computer-generated, coding occurs through top-down processes. When motion is naturalistic velocity, and believed to be human-generated, it is most likely coded by gaining access to bottom-up sensorimotor processes in the action-observation network., (Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Recent studies show that participants can engage in motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) simultaneously (AO+MI), indicating a capacity for dual action simulation. Here we studied the electrophysiological correlates and behavioural outcomes of two forms of AO+MI, along with pure MI and pure AO control conditions. In synchronised AO+MI, participants imagined performing a rhythmical action in synchrony with an observed distractor action. In contrast in static AO+MI, where the imagery served to conflict with AO, participants imagined holding a static hand posture during AO. Following synchronised AO+MI, rhythmical execution was strongly biased toward the cycle time of the previously observed rhythm ('imitation bias'), whereas a weaker bias was found following pure MI, and particularly for static AO+MI. In line with these findings, event-related desynchronisation (ERD) in primary sensorimotor and parietal regions was more pronounced in synchronised AO+MI compared to both pure AO and pure MI. These ERD amplitudes were, however, highly similar for static and synchronised AO+MI; suggesting that, regardless of co-represented content, both AO+MI states produced stronger motor activations than single action simulation. In contrast, synchronised AO+MI produced significantly stronger ERD in rostral prefrontal cortex compared to the other three conditions. This specific rostral prefrontal involvement most likely reflected additional cognitive processing for aligning dual action simulations. Together these results provide an important empirical validation of different AO+MI states, in that the imitation bias was strongly modulated by the content of the AO+MI instructions, and that synchronised AO+MI produced stronger behavioural and neurophysiological effects compared to pure AO or MI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The acquisition of sensorimotor parameters that control goal-directed motor behaviors occurs by observing another person in the absence of efferent and afferent motor signals. This is observational practice. During such observation, biological motion properties associated with the observed person are coded into a representation that controls motor learning. Understanding the underlying processes, specifically associated with coding biological motion, has theoretical and practical significance. Here, we examined the following questions. Experiment 1: Are the underlying velocity characteristics associated with observed biological motion kinematics imitated? Experiment 2: Is attention involved in imitating biological motion kinematics? Experiment 3: Can selective attention modulate how biological motion kinematics are imitated/represented? To this end, participants practiced by observing a model performing a movement sequence that contained typical or atypical biological motion kinematics. The differences in kinematics were designed to dissociate the movement constraints of the task and the anatomical constraints of the observer. This way, we examined whether novel motor behaviors are acquired by adopting prototypical movements or coding biological motion. The kinematic analyses indicated the timing and spatial position of peak velocity were represented. Using a dual-task protocol, we attenuated the coding of biological motion kinematics (Experiment 2) and augmented coding using a selective attention protocol (Experiment 3). Findings indicated that velocity characteristics of biological motion kinematics are coded during observational practice, most likely through bottom-up sensorimotor processes. By modulating motion coding using 2 attentional protocols, we showed that bottom-up processes are influenced by input modulation, which is consistent with top-down control during observational practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The present experiment examined learning of a three-segment movement sequence using physical or observational practice, and whether permitting eye movements to be made during observation is a prerequisite for learning such a movement sequence. Specifically, participants were required to move a mouse cursor through a three-segment movement sequence in order to satisfy one of three movement time goals (800, 1000, 1200ms). A yoked-participant design was used in which a physical practice group acted as a learning model, which was viewed simultaneously by two groups that carried out different observational practice procedures. An observation group was permitted to move their eyes whilst observing the model, whereas the fixation group was instructed to maintain fixation on a central target. The difference between pre-test and post-test data indicated that all the three experimental groups significantly altered their timing accuracy, variability and movement kinematics over practice, while the control group’s behaviour was unchanged. These data indicate that movement time as well as the underlying movement control was learned following observation of a movement with or without an explicit contribution from eye movements, albeit to a lesser extent during the final segment of the sequence when compared to the physical practice group. The implication is that while similar processes might normally be involved in physical and observational practice, information afforded by eye movements during observation (e.g., efference copy and eye proprioception) is not necessary for movement sequence learning. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Neurophysiological and behavioural research has linked observational practice (OP) to a mirroring mechanism encompassing the action-observation network (AON). Although, the original findings indicate that biological stimuli alone activate the AON, recent evidence has shown sensitivity to non-biological stimuli. Thus, the AON is suggested to be influenced by interacting bottom-up and top-down processes. In this review, we describe the multi-functional properties of the AON and discuss the implications for OP and subsequent motor learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]