Imagery ability classification: Commentary on «Kinaesthetic imagery ability moderates the effect of an AO+MI intervention on golf putt performance: A pilot study» by McNeill et al. (2020)
Résumé
McNeill et al. (2020) recently published a study that first aimed to assess the effect of a combination of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) on golf putt performance and then to determine if the evolution of this performance could be moderated by participants’ kinesthetic imagery ability. To assess golfers’ MI ability, the authors used the third version of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Participants notably self-estimated their kinesthetic MI ability by using a Likert-type scale, with scores ranging from 1 “very difficult to feel” to 7 “very easy to feel”. Athletes were categorized as either “poor” or “good” kinesthetic imagers, with mean scores of 4.93 and 6.63, respectively, in the intervention groups. Although a similar categorization procedure had previously been used in the literature for “good imagers”, the mean scores for “poor” imagers were much higher than those noted in previous studies evaluating the effect of MI ability on motor accuracy. Moreover, the low number of participants in the intervention group (n = 22) meant that participants were considered “poor” imagers even though their mean scores corresponded to “quite easy to feel” kinesthetic images of movements. This could notably explain the lack of differences between “poor” and “good” imagers in terms of putting performance in the intervention group. Despite these methodological limitations, the results of McNeill et al.‘s study show promising evidence for the efficacy of an AO plus MI intervention in relation to putting performance and should lead to further investigations. We suggest that research in the area of motor imagery ability include larger samples to explore, in individuals with very low imagery ability scores, the effects of the combination of AO and MI on motor performance.