Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Brain activity during observation and motor imagery of different balance tasks: An fMRI study

Open access
Taube, Wolfgang, Mouthon, Michael, Leukel, Christian, Hoogewoud, Henri-Marcel, Annoni, Jean-Marie, Keller, Martin·2015·Cortex
DOI 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.09.022
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

After immobilization, patients show impaired postural control and increased risk of falling. Therefore, loss of balance control should already be counteracted during immobilization. Previously, studies have demonstrated that both motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) can improve motor performance. The current study elaborated how the brain is activated during imagination and observation of different postural tasks to provide recommendations about the conception of non-physical balance training. For this purpose, participants were tested in a within-subject design in an fMRI-scanner in three different conditions: (a) AO + MI, (b) AO, and (c) MI. In (a) participants were instructed to imagine themselves as the person pictured in the video whereas in (b) they were instructed simply to watch the video. In (c) subjects closed their eyes and kinesthetically imagined the task displayed in the video. Two tasks were evaluated in each condition: (i) static standing balance and (ii) dynamic standing balance (medio-lateral perturbation). In all conditions the start of a new trial was indicated every 2 sec by a sound. During AO + MI of the dynamic task, participants activated motor centers including the putamen, cerebellum, supplementary motor area, premotor cortices (PMv/d) and primary motor cortex (M1). MI showed a similar pattern but no activity in M1 and PMv/d. In the SMA and cerebellum, activity was generally higher in the dynamic than in the static condition. AO did not significantly activate any of these brain areas. Our results showed that (I) mainly AO + MI, but also MI, activate brain regions important for balance control; (II) participants display higher levels of brain activation in the more demanding balance task; (III) there is a significant difference between AO + MI and AO. Consequently, best training effects should be expected when participants apply MI during AO (AO + MI) of challenging postural tasks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.09.022

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 275

Metadata

Authors
Taube, W., Mouthon, M., Leukel, C., Hoogewoud, H.-M., Annoni, J.-M., & Keller, M.
Venue
Cortex
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
64
Pages
102-114
ISSN
0010-9452 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cortex.2014.09.022
OpenAlex
W1983108712
Cited by
275
References
65
FWCI
22.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.