Centre for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen Groningen, Netherlands ; Research Centre for Health, Social Work & Technology, School of Applied Psychology, Saxion University of Applied Sciences Deventer, Netherlands.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Nov 19;7:790. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00790. eCollection 2013.
There is little consensus on how motor imagery ability should be measured in stroke patients. In particular it is unclear how two methods tapping different aspects of the motor imagery process relate to each other. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between implicit and explicit motor imagery ability by comparing performance of stroke patients and controls on a motor imagery questionnaire and a hand laterality judgment task (HLJT). Sixteen ischemic stroke patients (36 ± 13 weeks post-stroke) and 16 controls, matched by age (51 ± 10 years), gender (7 females) and handedness (3 left-handed), performed a HLJT and completed a motor imagery questionnaire. Our study shows that neither in the healthy controls nor in patients, a correlation is found between the HLJT and the motor imagery questionnaire. Although the patient group scored significantly lower than the control group on the visual motor imagery component (U = 60; p = 0.010) and the kinesthetic motor imagery component (U = 63.5; p = 0.015) of the questionnaire, there were no significant differences between patients and controls on accuracy scores of the HLJT. Analyses of the reaction time profiles of patients and controls showed that patient were still able to use an implicit motor imagery strategy in the HLJT task. Our results show that after stroke performance on tests that measure two different aspects of motor imagery ability, e.g., implicit and explicit motor imagery, can be differently affected. These results articulate the complex relation phenomenological experience and the different components of motor imagery have and caution the use of one tool as an instrument for use in screening, selecting and monitoring stroke patients in rehabilitation settings.
在中风患者中,对于如何衡量运动想象能力,尚未达成共识。特别是,尚不清楚两种方法如何相互关联,这两种方法分别涉及运动想象过程的不同方面。本研究旨在通过比较中风患者和对照组在运动想象问卷和手偏侧判断任务(HLJT)上的表现,来探讨内隐和外显运动想象能力之间的关系。16 名缺血性中风患者(中风后 36±13 周)和 16 名年龄匹配的对照组(51±10 岁)、性别匹配(7 名女性)和惯用手匹配(3 名左利手)完成了 HLTJ 和运动想象问卷。我们的研究表明,无论是在健康对照组还是在患者组中,都未发现 HLTJ 与运动想象问卷之间存在相关性。尽管患者组在视觉运动想象成分(U = 60;p = 0.010)和动觉运动想象成分(U = 63.5;p = 0.015)上的得分显著低于对照组,但在 HLTJ 的准确性评分上,患者与对照组之间没有显著差异。对患者和对照组的反应时间分布进行分析后发现,患者仍能够在 HLTJ 任务中使用内隐运动想象策略。我们的结果表明,中风后,测量运动想象能力的两种不同方面(例如内隐和外显运动想象)的测试的表现可能会受到不同的影响。这些结果阐明了现象学体验与运动想象不同成分之间的复杂关系,并提醒在康复环境中筛选、选择和监测中风患者时,应谨慎使用一种工具作为工具。