Imagery and observational
learning
Some (more) observations
Definitions
• Imagery
Definitions
• Observation
So...
• Imagery =

top-down, imposed without external stimulus,
conscious
• Observation =

bottom-up, in the presence of the actual signal,
subconscious
Questions:
• Do these two share similar neural processes?

(and are these similar to the to be learned
movement?)
• How, and how much, do they influence
(movement) behavior?
• How can they be used most effectively?
We’ll see that they (potentially) share several
mechanisms, and that the key point is that they are
perhaps complimentary to each other, but that
perhaps observation is the superior route to learning
Questions:
• And also...to what extent does the similarity of
neural processing matter when considering
the merits of each?
We’ll see that they (potentially) share several
mechanisms, and that the key point is that they are
perhaps complimentary to each other, but that
perhaps observation is the superior route to learning
1. The imagery process
• How does this typically start?

“close your eyes”
 When eyes are closed, alpha band activity is different
to when they are not (Andreassi, 2000)
 Neural circuits used for imagery are already different to
those used for action
1. The imagery process
• To continue...

Imagery is comprised of (De Beni, Pazzaglia, &
Gardinin, 2007)
Implies that the timing of the
 Image generation
 Image transformation
 Image maintenance
 Image scanning

imaged act and the actual act are
not likely to be very similar
One seems to be necessary to
manage the other
(imagery generally has a script, which is read, which
enforces different timing than the target movement)
Do you do any of this when you actually perform a
movement?
 Neural similarity compromised?
Contrast with observation?
1. The imagery process
• Spatial perspective, agency, modality

Spatial perspective:
 are you imaging from the first or third person
perspective?

Agency:
 are you imaging yourself perform the image or
someone else

Modality:
 in what sense are you imaging? Visually?
Kinesthetically?
Contrast with observation?
1. The imagery process
• Spatial perspective, agency, modality

Problems:
 Can’t you see yourself from a 3rd person viewpoint?
• (perspective and agency conflated)
 What of relative motion? If you don’t move while
imaging a movement, will you experience the
kinesthetic consequences of the movement?

The point is, one must consider instructions to
image very carefully in order to maintain the most
similarity between the imaged and the actual
movement
Contrast with observation?
1. The imagery process
• Spatial perspective, agency, modality

Agency: Imaging self versus others
 Imaging self movement can result in different neural
activation patterns than imaging others’
• Instructions should emphasize self-imaged movement
• Allows for full range of self-memories to be activated
• See Jeannerod (2006)
Contrast with observation?
1. The imagery process
• Spatial perspective, agency, modality

Perspective and viewing angle
 Sometimes, an external visual spatial perspective can
be useful (increased consideration of certain nuances
of the action, such as in gymnastics – White & Hardy
1995, see also Callow & Roberts 2010)
 Then perhaps multiple viewing angles should be
encouraged, to explore these nuances maximally?
 Form-dependent (external?) vs. form independent skills
(internal?)
Contrast with observation?
1. The imagery process
• Spatial perspective, agency, modality

Imagery modality
 How does one get the strongest cross modality imagery?
(Kinesthetic, proprioceptive, visual, sound, gustatory, tactile,
etc...)
 First or third person can generate it.
• Some claim 1st person strongest (Collins et al. 1998)
• But…3rd person works too…when self-agency is used, and only for
skilled performers (Callow and Hardy 2004)
» Such imagery “may have spatial and/or visual components”
» Links with perception-action coupling – these things are
experienced, and learned, together
Contrast with observation?
1. The imagery process
• Neural associations: Imagined & real m’ment

Does imagery activate primary motor cortex?
 Yes, but in different areas
• Selection and preparation are similar
• initiation/execution differ
 Results vary
• Methodological concerns – duration; perspective, etc...
• Remember the alteration of consciousness here – what if
those aspects that are imagined are just the part of the
movement we’re consciously aware of?
Contrast with observation?
1. The imagery process
• Neural associations: Imagined & real m’ment

Cerebellar contributions
 Similar to Primary Motor Cortex
• Cerebellum coordinates aspects of movement and handles
feedforward and feedback loops
• But again different areas are active – seem to be inhibitory
rather than excitatory…perhaps associated w activated yet
suppressed movement
• Explicit relation to imagined movements still to be established
Contrast with observation?
1. The imagery process
• Neural associations: Imagined & real m’ment

What about the role of expertise?
 Skilled pianists experience neural activation in areas
related to spatial and temporal aspects of skill (Lotze
and colleagues, 2003, 2006)
• not in areas related to actual motor control of skill
• rehearsing feel and other abstract components
 Perhaps imagery for skilled movers is less about
rehearsing the motor components?
 Experts seem to have more “efficient” & temporally
accurate neural activation when imaging (Lotze et al.
2003)
Contrast with observation?
1. The imagery process
• Conclusions
There are physiological associations between
imagery and real movements
 But the differences are as enlightening - The
difference in the activities may be as important as
the similarity

Contrast with observation?
2. Observation Processes
• The supporting mechanism

The mirror neuron (MN) system (Di Pellegrino et al.,
1992; Rizzolatti & Craighero, 2004)
 AKA “motor resonance” system

Some quirks:
 MN fires more watching humans than watching
“models”
 MN fires v. little when the action is not “plausible”, or is
not known (unlearned)
2. Observation Processes
• The supporting mechanism

4 functions claimed:
 Understanding action
 Understanding intention
 Imitation
 Empathy
2. Observation Processes
• Observation and neural activity

Note differences to imagery here
 No generation, maintenance, or transformation
necessary
2. Observation Processes
• Observation and neural activity

Perspective
 Same possible conflation of perspective, agency, and
modality
 Perspective alters neural patterning in ways similar to
imagery

Specular (mirror-like) imitation
 Children imitate as though performing the mirror image of
the action
• Emphasizes spatial and temporal characteristics of skill best
communicated – not total matching
• Maybe face the same way as the model (think aerobics
instruction)??
2. Observation Processes
• Observation and neural activity

Agency
 Some evidence that self- observation better than other
• Hand position (Urgesi et al. 06); dart throwing (Knoblich 01)
• Might be explained through functional similarity of the
underlying neural activity
2. Observation Processes
• Observation and neural activity

Motor Cortex and Observation
 Cortico-spinal system impressively active (contrast with
imagery) during observation
 Present also when listening to action-related sounds
(music, hands clapping, etc.) – may be related to
imagery script effectiveness
 Anticipatory activation also present (not so in imagery –
self-generated) – may be important for motor priming
Part of the non-declarative
memory set associated with
moving
(i.e. activity in motor system
prior to the actual
observation)
2. Observation Processes
• Observation and neural activity

Role of instructions (observe to “imitate”, or
observe to “recognize” or no goal at all)
 These alter the neural activation that occurs during
observation
 Intent to imitate seems to be important
2. Observation Processes
• Observation based characteristics
 Imagery is fraught with construct validity concerns –
observation can avoid these
3. A preference
• Observation based characteristics
Observation is more veridical with the task being
observed
 Still photos can be used as they imply motion (has
to be less powerful though – no relative motion is
perceived)
 All the outcomes desired of imagery can probably
be better achieved using observation (see next
image)

3. A preference - summary
Control of internal
activity (linked to
real external
movement)