Research
Open Access

Physiological changes in response to apnea impact the timing of motor representations: a preliminary study

  • Franck Di Rienzo1Email author,
  • Nady Hoyek1,
  • Christian Collet1 and
  • Aymeric Guillot1, 2
Behavioral and Brain Functions201410:15

https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-10-15

©  Di Rienzo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

Received: 7 January 2014

Accepted: 15 April 2014

Published: 28 April 2014

Abstract

Background

Reduced physiological arousal in response to breath-holding affects internal clock processes, leading swimmers to underestimate the time spent under apnea. We investigated whether reduced physiological arousal during static apnea was likely to affect the temporal organization of motor imagery (MI).

Methods

Fourteen inter-regional to national breath-holding athletes mentally and physically performed two 15 m swimming tasks of identical durations. They performed the two sequences in a counterbalanced order, the first while breathing normally using a scuba, the second under apnea. We assessed MI duration immediately after completion of the corresponding task. Athletes performed MI with and without holding breath.

Results

MI durations (26.1 s ± 8.22) were significantly shorter than actual durations (29.7 s ± 7.6) without holding breath. Apnea increased MI durations by 10% (± 5%). Heart rate decrease in response to breath-holding correlated with MI durations increase (p < .01). Under apnea, participants achieved temporal congruence between MI and PP only when performing MI of the apnea swimming task. Self-report data indicated greater ease when MI was performed in a physiological arousal state congruent with that of the corresponding motor task.

Conclusions

Physiological arousal affected the durations of MI through its effects on internal clock processes and by impacting the congruency in physiological body states between overt and covert motor performance. Present findings have potential implications with regards to the possibility of preventing underestimation of durations spent under a state of reduced physiological arousal.

Keywords

Mental chronometry Motor imagery Apnea Heart rate Internal clock

Introduction

Motor Imagery (MI) is the mental representation of a motor act without engaging in its actual execution. A large body of neuroscience research supports that MI and physical practice (PP) of the same task share overlapping neural substrates [1–4], and involve functionally equivalent neural processes [5–8]. As well, behavioral research provided strong evidence for a temporal congruence between the temporal structure of MI and the temporal parameters of the corresponding motor performance, reflecting the involvement of common planning and programming strategies [9]. Recently, Guillot et al. [10] reviewed the key-components that may affect the durations of MI, i.e., factors that promote temporal congruence or conversely yield to consistent overestimation or underestimation of PP durations. Interestingly, they specifically highlighted the selective influence of several external factors on MI durations. For instance, the characteristics of the motor skill are likely to alter the temporal congruence between MI and PP durations (i.e., short-lasting motor sequences are usually overestimated, whereas long-lasting and cyclical motor skills tend to be underestimated). Similarly, complex motor sequences require greater time to be mentally rehearsed compared to physically executed [9, 11, 12]. Finally, a proportional increase in MI durations was found along with the intensity of the mental effort [13–15].

While some intrinsic features of the task might impact its imagined duration, the sport imagery literature acknowledges that the construction of the temporal organization of MI is primarily based on the temporal parameters of the corresponding motor performance [10, 16, 17]. Indeed, actual motor experiences participate to the central elaboration of forward models [18], i.e., an internal simulation of the movement derived from the efferent copy of the motor command, predicting future body states and stimulating the sensory consequences of the expected actions [18–21]. Accordingly, central processing of MI involves the forward modeling of the corresponding action, from which substantial information about its spatial and temporal features is obtained [18, 21–23]. Albeit primarily showed in chronometric experiments, this claim is also supported by brain imaging data. For instance, Lorey et al. [24] stated that:

“The functional equivalence of action states is due mostly to internal estimations of the expected sensory feedback in both motor control and motor imagery” (p. 1).

Also, applied experiments provided evidence that central integration of sensory input during PP affected MI durations, due to central updating of the temporal structure of the motor representation [15, 22, 25, 26]. Di Rienzo et al. [26] observed that physical fatigue led to underestimation of the durations of imagined turns in swimming athletes. A tight temporal congruence between MI and PP was measured before fatigue state, but MI durations were shorter immediately after an intense swimming exercise. This was only observed for MI tasks that involved a strong reference to bodily information (i.e., first-person visual MI) [27]. Conversely, external visual imagery durations were unaffected by physical fatigue. The authors interpreted their results as an account of the update of the forward model due to the repeated integration of sensory feedbacks under fatigue state ([see also [23]). However, findings might also account for aversive or motivational effects related to the experience of physical fatigue. Finally, scientific data in clinical populations also support the hypothesis of sensory afferences playing a crucial role in the shaping of MI durations (e.g., [28]).

While cognitive motor processes participate to the elaboration of the temporal structure of MI [29, 30], Decety et al. [31] early stated that “MI involve[s] the same clock mechanism as the actual motor behavior”, with reference to Keele et al. [32]. The authors observed that overestimation of MI durations in stroke patients might account for “an impairment in the central implementation of the clock” (i.e., in the sense of the internal clock) [33, 34]. In other words, MI durations might not only depend on the temporal parameters of forward models but also from internal clock processes generally involved in time estimation ability. Since Hoagland [33], theoretical models for a human internal clock were conceptualized from animal research (for a review, see [35]). Internal clock models assume that temporal features are centrally represented on the basis of a physiological “pacemaker” producing pulses at a given rate (the lick rate was assumed to play the role of the pacemaker in rats, see [36]). The amount of pulses within a given time period would be summed, stored within working memory, and finally compared with a reference long-term memory model (for an overview, see [34, 37, 38]). Applied to motor control, Treisman et al. [39] provided evidence that an oscillator controlled temporal estimations in humans and was involved in the control of movement timing.

Interestingly, a large body of experimental data supports that heartbeats may be the physiological pacemaker of the internal clock in humans [38, 40–43]. Namely, humans might non-consciously refer to their own heartbeats to achieve time estimations. This postulate accounts for the reported effects of physiological arousal on time estimation ability [33, 41, 44–47]. Albeit it was recently suggested that physiological arousal, but not heart rate per se, influenced time estimation in humans, thus putting into debate the concept of “internal pacemaker” [48], physiological arousal and heart rate remain highly correlated. Past experiments also demonstrated that physiological arousal affected MI durations (see [10] for a review). For instance, Louis et al. [49] observed that reduced body arousal elicited by relaxation resulted in longer MI durations compared to both aroused and baseline conditions. In the same vein, Gueugneau et al. [22] found that the duration of MI followed the circadian rhythms of arousal, i.e., longer MI durations were measured early in the morning and late in the evening (see also [50]). To summarize, findings of a relationship between physiological arousal and MI durations are congruent with the working hypothesis of internal clock processes being involved in the temporal organization of MI. Nonetheless, the cognitive interplay between internal clock processes and time parameters of forward models remains at this point incompletely understood.

Voluntary breath-holding (i.e., apnea) at rest is known to decrease heart rate both in air and water environments [38, 43, 51, 52]. Bradycardia occurs in response to water immersion due to cardiovascular and metabolic changes triggered by the mammalian diving reflex [53–56]. In a pioneering study, Jamin et al. [43] observed that reduced physiological arousal during breath-holding caused an underestimation of the durations of static apneas by about 20%. According to the authors, bradycardia disturbed the internal clock and impaired time estimation ability. These findings are of specific concern for breath-holders, because accurate control of the time spent under apnea is crucial to achieve safe practice and avoid syncope accidents [38].

The present study used the unique model of apnea to understand the respective contribution of i) time parameters of forward models derived from past motor experiences and ii) internal clock processes depending on the current physiological body state on the temporal features of MI. We hypothesized that breath-holding might affect MI durations due to changes in the internal clock, and that these effects would be selective according to the arousal body state during PP.

Methods

Participants

Fourteen breath-holding athletes were requested to physically and mentally perform a set of two swimming tasks, the first with, and the second without simultaneously holding breath. The experimental group consisted of 14 breath-holding athletes (males = 11, females = 3; M = 38.3, SD = 7.7) and included both national (n = 9) and inter-regional (n = 5) athletes. The experimental design was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University. Informed written consent was obtained according to the principles and statements of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964).

Experimental design and settings

Experiments were individually implemented in a 25 m public swimming pool (F-69110, Sainte Foy-lès-Lyon). Water temperature was 27.3°C and participants wore an apnea suit and were not weighted. Three iron sticks were initially dived at the bottom of the pool, perpendicularly to the lane. Iron sticks were respectively separated from each other by 4.5, 3.0 and 1.5 m (Figure 1). All experimental sessions were carried out in the same daytime (8 pm), i.e., when MI performance is the most accurate [22, 50].
Figure 1

Overhead view of experimental settings for the two sequential swimming tasks. MI: Motor Imagery.

Swimming tasks

Participants were requested to physically and mentally perform two swimming tasks of 15 m involving a sequence of aquatic displacements between 3 iron stick positions. The first task was a 1-3-1-2-1 sequence and the second was a 3-1-2-1-3 sequence (Figure 1). The first swimming task was performed while breathing normally using a scuba after a 45 s period of rest where participants breathed normally behind the starting iron stick (PPBREATHE). The second task was performed under apnea following a 45 s period of static apnea behind the starting iron stick (PPAPNEA). Pilot recordings showed that this duration was sufficient to elicit a sustained bradycardia without eliciting any discomfort for participants. The two tasks were of equivalent difficulty and involved a similar number of turns. During both tasks, participants were instructed to swim using self-paced breaststroke actions, and to remain by the surface of the pool (i.e., a part of their body had to be constantly visible out of water surface by the experimenter). Concerning the turns, after the head had passed the iron stick, participants turned themselves and swam in the reverse direction. PPBREATHE and PPAPNEA were presented in a randomized order across participants. Four PP trials were completed before measurements of MI durations.

The timekeeping of PPBREATHE and PPAPNEA was manually performed by a professional swimming coach who was not informed of the purpose of the study. Timekeeping was triggered when breath-holder’s head passed above the starting and ending iron sticks (i.e., 1-3-1-2-1 for PPBREATHE and 3-1-2-1-3 for PPAPNEA) (Figure 1).

Motor imagery ability assessment

Breath-holding participants completed, before the experiment, a validated MI questionnaire to assess their ability to engage into MI (MIQ-3 questionnaire) [57]. The MIQ-3 consists in 12 items for which participants rate the ease/difficulty encountered during MI on 7-point scales (ranging from 1: “very hard to see/feel” to 7: “very easy to see/feel”) referring to external visual, internal visual, and kinesthetic MI.

Mental chronometry allows investigation of the time course of information processing within the central nervous system [58]. We measured MI duration immediately after PP of the corresponding motor task. Participants sat comfortably in a chair placed by the side of the swimming pool (Figure 1). Participants were instructed to perform MI of the sequence using first-person visual and kinesthetic MI concurrently. For PPBREATHE and PPAPNEA, they performed MI while breathing normally after a 45 s period of normal breathing (MIBREATHE) and while holding breath after a 45 s period of static apnea (MIAPNEA). The two MI conditions were presented in a randomized order (3 trials each). Participants orally indicated the onset and end of each MI trial.

After completion of MIBREATHE and MIAPNEA, participants reported their level of MI ease/difficulty on a 10-point Lickert scale (ranging from 1: “very easy” to 10: “very hard”).

Cardiac activity

We recorded the cardiac activity using a heart rate monitor (Polar® RCX3, France) providing the instantaneous heart rate (IHR) in beats per minute (bpm). HR at rest (HRREST) was individually evaluated before the onset of experiments. HRREST was considered the average value obtained during 45 s of rest during which participants remained motionless, comfortably seated on the chair by the side of the pool (Figure 1).

Voluntary apnea with face immersion in humans is commonly associated with anticipatory tachycardia. Cardiac activity starts to decrease and stabilizes after approximately 30 s of face immersion (e.g., [59]). We could not monitor cardiac activity during the swimming tasks, which required a waterproof heart rate monitor. Yet, bradycardia in response to breath holding is largely documented in the literature, and is particularly marked due to the mammalian diving reflex [51, 53, 56, 60].

We collected the average HR during the 45 s period preceding MI and expressed it in percentage of HRREST for normalization across participants. We did not collect HR data during MI due to solid literature background reporting MI-related changes in cardiac activity (i.e., cardiac responses during MI closely mirror physiological changes elicited by PP of the same task and/or recruitment of attentional resources) [61–64].

Statistical analyses

All statistical calculations were performed using the R freeware [65], and the alpha threshold for significance was settled at α = 5%.

MIQ-3 scores represent discrete variables derived from ordinal scales. Due to assumption of non-Gaussian distribution, they were compared across internal visual, external visual and kinesthetic MI modalities using Friedman’s test. Self-reports of ease/difficulty were compared between MIBREATHE and MIAPNEA using paired Wilcoxon’s tests.

Normality of chronometric data was checked through visual inspection of Q-Q plots. PP, MIBREATHE and MIAPNEA durations were compared for both swimming tasks using a repeated measures MANOVA model with the swimming task as group factor (PPBREATHE and PPAPNEA) and the task type as repetition factor (PP, MIBREATHE and MIAPNEA). An independent analysis of PP, MIBREATHE and MIAPNEA durations was conducted for PPBREATHE and PPAPNEA using one-way ANOVAs with repeated measures. We used paired Student’s t-tests with Holm’s Bonferroni corrections (Holm, 1969) for post-hoc comparisons.

For both swimming tasks, independence between HR and MI duration changes was tested using Pearson’s product-moment correlation between the percentage of HR change before MIBREATHE and MIAPNEA and the percentage of change in MIBREATHE and MIAPNEA durations.

Results

MIQ-3 scores

Testing the MI modality effect on MIQ-3 scores did not reveal statistically significant differences (Friedman’s Chi-squared = 1.45, p = .48). Namely, breath-holders reported similar degrees of difficulty at performing external visual (M = 5.84, SD = .69), internal visual (M = 6.0, SD = .80) and kinesthetic MI (M = 5.80, SD = .97). Mean MIQ-3 scores (M = 5.80, SD = .59) also showed that participants experienced MIQ-3 tasks as easy to visualize or perceive.

Likert ratings

Breath holders self-reported greater MI ease scores during MIBREATHE (M = 3.21, SD = .65) as compared to MIAPNEA (M = 4.93, SD = .70) when imagining the PPBREATHE task (Wilcoxon’s W = 3.5, p = .005). Conversely, lower ratings were obtained during MIAPNEA (M = 3.58, SD = .62) compared to MIBREATHE (M = 5.15, SD = .52) when imagining the PPAPNEA swimming task (Wilcoxon’s W = 44, p = .01).

Temporal data

MANOVA with repeated measures yielded the main effect of Task (F (2,25)  = 10.16, p < .001, η 2  = .44) while there was a trend concerning the interaction between the swimming task and task type (F (2,25)  = 2.96, p = .06, η 2  = .12).

ANOVA with repeated measures revealed that the effect of task type was statistically significant for both PPBREATHE and PPAPNEA (F (2,26)  = 4.19, p = .02 and F (2,26)  = 20.44, p < .001, respectively). For both swimming tasks, post-hoc analyses revealed higher durations during PP compared to MIBREATHE (p = .02 and p < .001, respectively), as well as during MIAPNEA compared to MIBREATHE (p = .02) as shown by Figure 2. Post-hoc analyses also revealed shorter durations during MIAPNEA (M = 27.71, SD = 8.18) compared to PPBREATHE (M = 31.02, SD = 7.15; p < .001), whereas no difference emerged between MIAPNEA (M = 29.78, SD = 9.95) and PPAPNEA (M = 29.79, SD = 6.73) (p = .99). As there was no difference between PPBREATHE and PPAPNEA durations (p = .72), the patterns of MI vs. PP differences in durations across swimming tasks might account for the trend in the MANOVA model, albeit the difference between the two MIAPNEA durations was only marginally significant when corrections for multiple comparisons were applied (M = 2.07 s, SD = 3.47, p = .09), see Figure 2. Finally, the difference in durations between MIBREATHE of the PPBREATHE and PPAPNEA tasks was far from significance (p = .98) as shown by Figure 1.
Figure 2

Physical practice and motor imagery durations during breathing and apnea swimming tasks. Error bars represent mean standard error. Only significant differences were graphically represented. PP: Physical Practice. Ɨ: p < .10, *: p < .05, **: p < .01, ***: p < .001.

Cardiac activity

HR data were processed from 13 participants as data from one participant was lost due to a technical failure. Overall, average HR before MIBREATHE was 72.61 bpm (SD = 2.29) while average HR before MIAPNEA was 66.81 bpm (SD = 2.24). Significant differences were observed in HR before the onset of the two MI conditions for both PPBREATHE (7.0% of HRREST decrease at onset of MIAPNEA as compared to MIBREATHE; t = 3.91, μ = 0, p = .002) and PPAPNEA (9.0% of HRREST decrease at onset of MIAPNEA as compared to MIBREATHE; t = 4.27, μ = 0, p = .001).

A correlation between the percentage of HR decrease between periods preceding MIBREATHE and MIAPNEA and the percentages of MI durations increase between MIBREATHE and MIAPNEA was found for both PPBREATHE and PPAPNEA (R 2  = .80, p < .001 and R 2  = .48, p < .01, respectively). The sum square error of the regression was 66% higher for PPBREATHE compared to PPAPNEA (Figure 3).
Figure 3

Correlations between variations in heart rate (percentage from basal values) and motor imagery duration changes between normal breathing and apnea conditions, for the apnea (left panel) and breathing (right panel) swimming tasks. MI: Motor imagery, HR: Heart rate.

Discussion

The present study was designed to investigate the effect of apnea on MI duration, and understand the respective contribution of the temporal parameters of both forward models and internal clock processes to the elaboration of the temporal structure of MI. We assessed participants ability to engage into MI using a validated MI questionnaire [57]. We recorded the durations of two swimming tasks performed with and without holding breath. For each task, we combined chronometric and physiological recordings of MI performed with and without holding breath.

MIQ-3 scores were similar between external visual, internal visual and kinesthetic imagery modalities. We specifically instructed participants to engage into first-person and kinesthetic MI concurrently as these modalities involve greater reference to one’s procedural memory [26, 27]. No significant difference was found between the durations of the two swimming tasks. Both were physically performed using a similar swimming technique, involved the same number of turns and a similar distance. Interestingly, PPBREATHE durations were underestimated during MIBREATHE. This result might account for the characteristics of the swimming sequence. Indeed, PP of both sequences lasted about 30 s. As recently reviewed by Guillot et al. [10], motor sequences longer than 15-20 s tend to be underestimated (e.g., [17, 66–68]). The reasons supporting this effect are not straightforward. Temporal parameters of movements may be quantitatively more complex to reproduce accurately in the case of long motor sequences, particularly for actions requiring an important amount of feedback control with reference to the action/control model by Glover [69]:

“(…) the control of nonballistic actions is achieved by continuously regulating the movement during its execution so that the desired end state is achieved at the desired time. The lack of this information in imagery may be what causes a shortening of the duration of the imagined event” [66], p. 880.

Due to the solid literature background supporting that motor experiences shape the temporal organization of MI [22, 23, 25, 28], similar imagined durations were expected between the two swimming tasks. However, MIAPNEA exceeded MIBREATHE durations regardless the swimming task involved. Performing MI while holding breath overall increased MI durations by 2.7 s (≈ 10%). Importantly, increased MI durations under the condition of breath-holding were correlated to the preceding HR decrease. This relationship was observed for both swimming tasks (Figure 3). These findings support the involvement of internal clock processes in the shaping of MI duration, as early postulated by Decety et al. [31]. As time perception and movement timing both involve reference to a common physiological oscillator [36, 39], it is suggested that bradycardia affected the internal clock “pacemaker” [34, 35, 38, 40–42], thus slowing the processing rate of motor representations. The involvement of the internal clock in the generation of MI durations brings new insights for a unified interpretation of experimental results related to factors affecting MI durations, such as the circadian modulation [22, 50] or relaxed/aroused body states [49]. Interestingly, these studies reported increased MI durations under low physiological arousal and shortened MI durations under high physiological arousal. These changes were typically associated with different cardiac activities [26, 49].

MIAPNEA durations remained shorter than that of PP for the swimming task involving normal breathing, whereas isochrony was found when comparing MIAPNEA and apnea swimming task durations. Longer durations (+2.07 s) were recorded during MIAPNEA of the apnea swimming tasks vs. MIAPNEA of the swimming task performed while breathing with a scuba. Yet, this difference was only marginally significant when corrections for multiple comparisons were applied (Figure 2). This unexpected finding suggests that congruence in physiological body states between overt and covert motor performance also contributes to the accuracy of MI durations. A limitation to this interpretation is that we did not record isochrony between MIBREATHE and PPBREATHE. This mismatch was attributed to the task duration, thought to elicit an incomplete encoding of the temporal parameters [10, 66]. The apnea swimming task was of identical duration but, crucially, was performed under a state of reduced physiological arousal. As movement timing parameters are controlled through reference to the internal clock [39], retention of movement timing parameters may be facilitated under the condition of reduced physiological arousal eliciting a slowing down of the internal clock [38, 43]. While the underestimation of MIBREATHE durations might account for the task duration in the case of normal breathing, it may rather relate to the physiological arousal mismatch during MIBREATHE of the apnea swimming task. Albeit this interpretation remains an inference, forward models relate to current body states through integration of proprioceptive afferences [27, 70]. For instance, the physiological body state affects the body representation through subtle changes in proprioceptive inputs to the central nervous system (see [71, 72] for examples). Therefore, the arousal state is an intrinsic component of the central processing of the expected consequences of imagined actions (forward modeling). Overall, while reference to internal clock affected the processing rate of motor representations, accurate movement timing processing through forward modeling presumably required a state of congruence in physiological body states. The fact that the R-squared of the regression between changes in HR and the associated changes in MI durations was higher (66%) for the breathing compared to the non-breathing swimming task partly supports to this assumption, as in the latter case online changes in the internal clock accounted to a lesser extent for the associated changes in MI durations.

Isochrony between MIAPNEA and PPAPNEA may thus result from both efficient storage of timing parameters of actual movement, facilitated by the changes in the internal clock in response to apnea, and accurate processing of the expected sensory consequences of the imagined action due to congruence in physiological body states. Such assumption is congruent with the subjective reports. Breath holders reported greater MI ease when the physiological arousal condition before initiation of MI was similar to that preceding PP of the same task (i.e., namely with or without holding breath during the 45 s preceding initiation of MI or PP). These preliminary results support the co-contribution of forward modeling and internal clock processes to the shaping of MI duration. Yet, this preliminary study must be extended by future designs involving different levels of arousal (e.g., increased heart rate) and retention conditions (e.g., performing MI two days later). Complementary measurement of physiological arousal are also necessary (e.g., autonomic nervous system recordings), for instance under the conditions of MI and apnea underwater [73, 74]. Another interesting issue would be determining to which extent changes in cerebral blood flow due to apnea might affect MI ability. For instance, accurate MI duration was associated with higher activation intensities within regions of the brain motor system [75]. As previous work underlined that apnea led to the underestimation of PP duration [38, 43], future studies should seek to determine whether correcting the effect of breath holding on MI durations (i.e., involving biased temporal predictions related to bradycardia amplitude), for instance by providing feedback concerning respect of isochrony with PP after completion of MI, would improve time estimation accuracy. Taken together, present findings might contribute to promote safe apnea practice in the currently developing context of apnea competitions.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the H2O apnea sporting club (Sainte-Foy-lès-Lyon, F-69110) and the Aquatic Club Fidésien apnea elite team (Sainte-Foy-lès-Lyon, F-69110) for their human and material support.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre de Recherche et d’Innovation sur le Sport, EA 647, Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, Lyon 1, Performance Motrice, Mentale et du Matériel (P3M), 27-29 Boulevard du 11 Novembre 1918
(2)
Institut Universitaire de France

References

  1. Ehrsson HH, Geyer S, Naito E: Imagery of voluntary movement of fingers, toes, and tongue activates corresponding body-part-specific motor representations. J Neurophysiol. 2003, 90: 3304-3316. 10.1152/jn.01113.2002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Szameitat AJ, Shen S, Sterr A: Motor imagery of complex everyday movements. An fMRI study. Neuroimage. 2007, 34: 702-713. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.09.033.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Michelon P, Vettel JM, Zacks JM: Lateral somatotopic organization during imagined and prepared movements. J Neurophysiol. 2006, 95: 811-822.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Guillot A, Di Rienzo F, Collet C: Functional magnetic resonance imaging/Book 1. Edited by: Papageorgiou TD, Christopoulos G, Smirnakis S. 2014, The neurofunctional architecture of motor imagery, In Tech,Google Scholar
  5. Jeannerod M: Mental imagery in the motor context. Neuropsychologia. 1995, 33: 1419-1432. 10.1016/0028-3932(95)00073-C.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jeannerod M: The representing brain: neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behav Brain Sci. 1994, 17: 187-202. 10.1017/S0140525X00034026.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Holmes PS, Collins DJ: The PETTLEP approach to motor imagery: a functional equivalence model for sport psychologists. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2001, 13: 60-83. 10.1080/10413200109339004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao Q, Duan X, Chen H: Evaluation of effective connectivity of motor areas during motor imagery and execution using conditional Granger causality. Neuroimage. 2011, 54: 1280-1288. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.071.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Decety J, Michel F: Comparative analysis of actual and mental movement times in two graphic tasks. Brain Cogn. 1989, 11: 87-97. 10.1016/0278-2626(89)90007-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Guillot A, Hoyek N, Louis M, Collet C: Understanding the timing of motor imagery: recent findings and future directions. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012, 5: 3-22. 10.1080/1750984X.2011.623787.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Beyer L, Weiss T, Hansen E, Wolf A, Seidel A: Dynamics of central nervous activation during motor imagination. Int J Psychophysiol. 1990, 9: 75-80. 10.1016/0167-8760(90)90008-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Maruff P, Velakoulis D: The voluntary control of motor imagery. Imagined movements in individuals with feigned motor impairment and conversion disorder. Neuropsychologia. 2000, 38: 1251-1260. 10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00031-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cerritelli B, Maruff P, Wilson P, Currie J: The effect of an external load on the force and timing components of mentally represented actions. Behav Brain Res. 2000, 108: 91-96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Slifkin AB: High loads induce differences between actual and imagined movement duration. Exp Brain Res. 2008, 185: 297-307. 10.1007/s00221-007-1154-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Papaxanthis C, Schieppati M, Gentili R, Pozzo T: Imagined and actual arm movements have similar durations when performed under different conditions of direction and mass. Exp Brain Res. 2002, 143: 447-452. 10.1007/s00221-002-1012-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Olsson CJ, Nyberg L: Motor imagery: if you can't do it, you won't think it. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010, 20: 711-715. 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01101.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Guillot A, Collet C: Duration of mentally simulated movement: a review. J Mot Behav. 2005, 37: 10-20. 10.3200/JMBR.37.1.10-20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Wolpert DM, Flanagan JR: Motor prediction. Curr Biol: CB. 2001, 11: R729-R732. 10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00432-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Miall R, Wolpert DM: Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Netw. 1996, 9: 1265-1279. 10.1016/S0893-6080(96)00035-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wolpert DM, Ghahramani Z: Computational principles of movement neuroscience. Nat Neurosci. 2000, 3 (Suppl): 1212-1217.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Grush R: The emulation theory of representation: motor control, imagery, and perception. Behav Brain Sci. 2004, 27: 377-396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gueugneau N, Mauvieux B, Papaxanthis C: Circadian modulation of mentally simulated motor actions: implications for the potential use of motor imagery in rehabilitation. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009, 23: 237-245.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Demougeot L, Papaxanthis C: Muscle fatigue affects mental simulation of action. J Neurosci. 2011, 31: 10712-10720. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6032-10.2011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lorey B, Pilgramm S, Walter B, Stark R, Munzert J, Zentgraf K: Your mind's hand: motor imagery of pointing movements with different accuracy. Neuroimage. 2010, 49: 3239-3247. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.038.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gueugneau N, Papaxanthis C: Time-of-day effects on the internal simulation of motor actions: psychophysical evidence from pointing movements with the dominant and non-dominant arm. Chronobiol Int. 2010, 27: 620-639. 10.3109/07420521003664205.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Di Rienzo F, Collet C, Hoyek N, Guillot A: Selective effect of physical fatigue on motor imagery accuracy. PLoS One. 2012, 7: e47207-10.1371/journal.pone.0047207.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorey B, Bischoff M, Pilgramm S, Stark R, Munzert J, Zentgraf K: The embodied nature of motor imagery: the influence of posture and perspective. Exp Brain Res Exp. 2009, 194: 233-243. 10.1007/s00221-008-1693-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Liepert J, Greiner J, Nedelko V, Dettmers C: Reduced upper limb sensation impairs mental chronometry for motor imagery after stroke: clinical and electrophysiological findings. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012, 26 (5): 470-478. 10.1177/1545968311425924.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Toussaint L, Robin N, Blandin Y: On the content of sensorimotor representations after actual and motor imagery practice. Mot Control. 2010, 14: 159-175.Google Scholar
  30. Toussaint M: A sensorimotor map: modulating lateral interactions for anticipation and planning. Neural Comput. 2006, 18: 1132-1155. 10.1162/neco.2006.18.5.1132.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Decety J, Boisson D: Effect of brain and spinal cord injuries on motor imagery. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1990, 240: 39-43. 10.1007/BF02190091.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Keele SW, Pokorny RA, Corcos DM, Ivry R: Do perception and motor production share common timing mechanisms: A correlational analysis. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1985, 60: 173-191. 10.1016/0001-6918(85)90054-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoagland H: The physiological control of judgments of duration: evidence for a chemical clock. J Gen Psychol. 1933, 9: 267-287. 10.1080/00221309.1933.9920937.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Church RM: Properties of the internal clock. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1984, 423: 566-582. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23459.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Church RM, Guilhardi P, Keen R, MacInnis M, Kirkpatrick K: Simultaneous temporal processing. Time and Mind II: Information Processing Perspectives. Edited by: Helfrich H. 2003, Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 3-19.Google Scholar
  36. Treisman M: Temporal rhythms and cerebral rhythms. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1984, 423: 542-565. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb23458.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Meck WH, Church RM: Simultaneous temporal processing. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1984, 10: 1-29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Jamin T, Joulia F, Fontanari P, Giacomoni M, Bonnon M, Vidal F, Cremieux J: Apnea-induced changes in time estimation and its relation to bradycardia. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2004, 75: 876-880.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Treisman M, Faulkner A, Naish PL: On the relation between time perception and the timing of motor action: evidence for a temporal oscillator controlling the timing of movement. Q J Exp Psychol. 1992, 45: 235-263. 10.1080/14640749208401326.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Cahoon RL: Effect of acute exposure to altitude on time estimation. J Psychol. 1967, 66: 321-324. 10.1080/00223980.1967.10544912.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Cahoon RL: Physiological arousal and time estimation. Percept Mot Skills. 1969, 28: 259-268. 10.2466/pms.1969.28.1.259.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Osato E, Ogawa N, Takaoka N: Relations among heart rate, immediate memory, and time estimation under two different instructions. Percept Mot Skills. 1995, 80: 831-842. 10.2466/pms.1995.80.3.831.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Jamin T, Joulia F, Fontanari P, Bonnon M, Ulmer C, Crémieux J: Effect of a static apnea exposure on time estimation ability. Sci Sports. 2004, 19: 142-144. 10.1016/S0765-1597(03)00169-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Gulliksen H: The influence of occupation upon the perception of time. J Exp Psychol. 1927, 10: 52-View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Bell C: Control of time estimation by a chemical clock. Nature. 1966, 210: 1189-10.1038/2101189a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Vercruyssen M, Hancock P, Mihaly T: Time estimation performance before, during, and following physical activity. J Hum Ergol. 1989, 18: 169-179.Google Scholar
  47. Wearden JH, Penton-Voak IS: Feeling the heat: body temperature and the rate of subjective time, revisited. Q J Exp Psychol. 1995, 48: 129-141.Google Scholar
  48. Schwarz MA, Winkler I, Sedlmeier P: The heart beat does not make us tick: The impacts of heart rate and arousal on time perception. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013, 75: 182-193. 10.3758/s13414-012-0387-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Louis M, Collet C, Guillot A: Differences in motor imagery times during aroused and relaxed conditions. J Cognit Psychol. 2011, 23: 374-382. 10.1080/20445911.2011.521739.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Debarnot U, Sahraoui D, Champely S, Collet C, Guillot A: Selective influence of circadian modulation and task characteristics on motor imagery time. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2012, 83: 442-450. 10.1080/02701367.2012.10599879.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Manley L: Apnoeic heart rate responses in humans. A review. Sports Med (Auckland, NZ). 1990, 9: 286-310. 10.2165/00007256-199009050-00004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Foster GE, Sheel AW: The human diving response, its function, and its control. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2005, 15: 3-12. 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00440.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Paulev PE: Cardiac rhythm during breath‒holding and water immersion in man. Acta Physiol Scand. 1968, 73: 139-150. 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1968.tb04091.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Bergman SA, Campbell J, Wildenthal K: "Diving reflex" in man: its relation to isometric and dynamic exercise. J Appl Physiol. 1972, 33: 27-31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Schagatay E, Holm B: Effects of water and ambient air temperatures on human diving bradycardia. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996, 73: 1-6. 10.1007/BF00262802.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Andersson J, Schagatay E, Gislén A, Holm B: Cardiovascular responses to cold-water immersions of the forearm and face, and their relationship to apnoea. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2000, 83: 566-572. 10.1007/s004210000317.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Williams SE, Cumming J, Ntoumanis N, Nordin-Bates SM, Ramsey R, Hall C: Further validation and development of the movement imagery questionnaire. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2012, 34: 621-646.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Posner MI: Chronometric explorations of mind. 1978, Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  59. Schagatay E, Andersson JPA, Hallén M, Pålsson B: Selected contribution: role of spleen emptying in prolonging apneas in humans. J Appl Physiol. 2001, 90: 1623-1629.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Przybylowski T, Bangash MF, Reichmuth K, Morgan BJ, Skatrud JB, Dempsey JA: Mechanisms of the cerebrovascular response to apnoea in humans. J Physiol. 2003, 548: 323-332. 10.1113/jphysiol.2002.029678.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Decety J, Jeannerod M, Germain M, Pastene J: Vegetative response during imagined movement is proportional to mental effort. Behav Brain Res. 1991, 42: 1-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Decety J, Jeannerod M, Durozard D, Baverel G: Central activation of autonomic effectors during mental simulation of motor actions in man. J Physiol. 1993, 461: 549-563.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Guillot A, Collet C: Contribution from neurophysiological and psychological methods to the study of motor imagery. Brain Res Rev. 2005, 50: 387-397. 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2005.09.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Collet C, Guillot A, Lebon F, MacIntyre T, Moran A: Measuring motor imagery using psychometric, behavioral, and psychophysiological tools. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2011, 39: 85-92. 10.1097/JES.0b013e31820ac5e0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Core Team R: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2014, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical ComputingGoogle Scholar
  66. Grealy MA, Shearer GF: Timing processes in motor imagery. Eur J Cogn Psychol. 2008, 20: 867-892. 10.1080/09541440701618782.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Hanyu K, Itsukushima Y: Cognitive distance of stairways distance, traversal time, and mental walking time estimations. Environ Behav. 1995, 27: 579-591. 10.1177/0013916595274007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Hanyu K, Itsukushima Y: Cognitive distance of stairways: a multi‒stairway investigation. Scand J Psychol. 2000, 41: 63-70. 10.1111/1467-9450.00172.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Glover S: Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behav Brain Sci. 2004, 27: 3-24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Sirigu A, Duhamel J: Motor and visual imagery as two complementary but neurally dissociable mental processes. J Cogn Neurosci. 2001, 13: 910-919. 10.1162/089892901753165827.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Kanekar N, Santos MJ, Aruin AS: Anticipatory postural control following fatigue of postural and focal muscles. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008, 119: 2304-2313. 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.06.015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Paillard T: Effects of general and local fatigue on postural control: a review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012, 36: 162-176. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.05.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Hemelryck W, Rozloznik M, Germonpre P, Balestra C, Lafere P: Functional comparison between critical flicker fusion frequency and simple cognitive tests in subjects breathing air or oxygen in normobaria. Diving Hyperb Med J South Pac Underwater Med Soc. 2013, 43: 138-142.Google Scholar
  74. Balestra C, Lafere P, Germonpre P: Persistence of critical flicker fusion frequency impairment after a 33 mfw SCUBA dive: evidence of prolonged nitrogen narcosis?. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012, 112: 4063-4068. 10.1007/s00421-012-2391-z.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. van der Meulen M, Allali G, Rieger SW, Assal F, Vuilleumier P: The influence of individual motor imagery ability on cerebral recruitment during gait imagery. Hum Brain Mapp. 2014, 35: 455-470. 10.1002/hbm.22192.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Di Rienzo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement