Using motor imagery to learn tactical movements in basketball.(Report)

Motor imagery (MI) is a dynamic state during which an action is mentally simulated without any body movement. This technique is a multi-sensorial experience as images can include visual, auditory, tactile and kinesthetic components. Two of the principle imagery perspectives that athletes use, are internal and external visual imagery. These perspectives require the visualization of movement, using either a first- or a third-person perspective, whereas kinesthetic imagery requires to mentally perceiving muscle contractions and stretching, as well as joint amplitude. Although visual and kinesthetic imagery have been found to be significantly correlated (Callow & Hardy, 2004), specific characteristics of motor performance may be enhanced by various imagery modalities (White & Hardy, 1998). Experts have been differentiated from novices by their ability to use visual and kinesthetic imagery (Barr & Hall, 1992; Mahoney & Avener, 1977). Non-expert athletes have been found to have usually greater difficulty in feeling the movement (Guillot & Collet, 2005b; Guillot, Collet, & Dittmar, 2004), kinesthetic imagery being beneficial only with an adequate degree of expertise (Hardy & Callow, 1999). While there is ample evidence that MI contributes to enhance motor performance, self-confidence and motivation, it still remains unknown whether mental practice may help to improve game plans or strategies of play in open skills.

According to the symbolic learning theory (Sackett, 1934), MI gives the opportunity to rehearse the sequence of movements as symbolic components of the task. Consequently, MI would facilitate the cognitive requirements of the skill, such as movement timing, sequencing and planning. However, when examining the functions of MI, it is important to match the imagery used with the intended outcome with the aim to improve the benefits of MI (Guillot & Collet, 2008; Martin, Moritz, & Hall, 1999). The analytic framework for imagery effects proposed by Paivio (1985) has suggested that MI may serve distinct functions (cognitive and motivational) operating on general and specific levels. The motivational components of this theory refer to the use of goal-oriented responses and the management of arousal level, while the cognitive components tap into skill improvement and refer to the imagery of game strategies. Furthermore, Hall, Mack, Paivio and Hausenblas (1998) have identified two components of the motivational general imagery (arousal and mastery). The majority of the studies that have investigated the effects of an imagery program in sport, focused on the cognitive specific function of imagery leading to the acquisition and performance of a specific motor skill. Hence, coaches often encourage their athletes to use MI, which is often a key component in the mental training programs developed and implemented by sport psychologists (Fenker & Lambiotte, 1987; McIntyre & Moran, 1996; Munroe-Chandler, Hall, Fishburne, & Shannon, 2005).

The combination of mental and physical practice is thought to be more efficient than physical practice alone when there is no decrease in total physical training (Driskell et al., 1994; Feltz & Landers, 1983; Guillot & Collet, 2008). Along this line, muscle strength has been found to increase after mental practice (Yue & Cole, 1992), as MI increases the cortical output signal, which brings muscles to a higher activation level resulting in an increase in strength. More generally, MI has been found to be more beneficial for closed than for open skills, i.e. when the execution of the skill takes place in a similar and monitored environment, without the influence of an opponent (Denis, 1985). However, several studies have reported some positive effects of mental training in open skills, such as in football (Fenker & Lambiotte, 1987), soccer (Blair, Hall, & Leyshon, 1993; Munroe-Chandler et al., 2005), canoe-slalom performance (McIntyre & Moran, 1996), table tennis (Li-Wei, Qi-Wei, Orlick, & Zitzelsberger, 1992;) and basketball flee-throw performance, although the environment does not significantly change in the latter (Hall & Erffmeyer, 1983; Lerner, Ostrow, Yura, & Etzel, 1996; Onestak, 1997; Wrisberg & Anshel, 1989).

In these studies, however, most of the mental practice designs used multiple interventions (e.g., relaxation, self-talk, video, in association with MI), so it appears to be difficult to determine the specific effect of MI. Furthermore, athletes have been systematically instructed to imagine a specific movement that did not directly depend on the opponent that was free of any spatial or temporal uncertainty, and where the environment remained stable. When considering an opponent's action, the effect of MI on performance enhancement has been found to be more selective. In a volleyball task (serve reception and pass to a motionless target player), Roure et al. (1998) observed that MI enhanced motor performance, but that the benefit of MI was not transferred, even in a closed motor sequence, in which the target player moved laterally before serve reception. To be efficient, spatial and temporal characteristics of MI should thus match those of physical execution (Guillot & Collet, 2005a; Holmes & Collins, 2001).

Even though some motor imagery experimental studies have been conducted in open skills, very few looked at the learning of tactical movements, in which the cognitive general function of imagery is required (Paivio, 1985). The effect of MI on learning game strategies seems to be an area of research in sport that has received little attention and has shown inconsistent results. Therefore, it appears necessary that some experimental investigation be undertaken. Kendall, Hrycaiko, Martin and Kendall (1990) suggested that the combination of MI, relaxation and self-talk training was effective in enhancing the performance of a defensive basketball skill. However, Munroe-Chandler et al. (2005) reported that although a young elite female soccer team showed the potential to ...