Skip to main content
Clinical Trials/NCT06299345
NCT06299345CompletedNot Applicable

The Effect of Motor Imagery Dosage on Motor Learning in Healthy Adults, A Pilot Study

Ahmed Mahmoud Kadry4 sites in 2 countries27 target enrollmentStarted: March 1, 2022Last updated:
Conditions
Interventions

Trial Snapshot

Phase
Not Applicable
Status
Completed
Sponsor
Enrollment
27
Locations
4
Primary Endpoint
Time

Study Overview

Brief Summary

The goal of this clinical trial is to compare the effects of different durations of Motor Imagery (MI) practice and physical practice on motor performance enhancement in healthy adults. The main questions it aims to answer are:

  • Does Motor Imagery (MI) practice improve motor performance?
  • How do different doses of MI practice (low vs. high) compare to no MI practice in enhancing motor performance?

Participants:

  • Be randomly assigned to one of three groups: no MI practice (control group), low dose MI practice (6 minutes per session), or high dose MI practice (12 minutes per session).
  • Complete nine sessions over three weeks, practicing a timed mirror tracing task.
  • Have their performance measured in each session by the time taken to complete the task and the number of errors made.

Compared the control group, low dose MI group, and high dose MI group to see if there are significant differences in motor performance enhancement, aiming to determine the effectiveness of MI and the optimal dose for practice.

Study Design

Study Type
Interventional
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention Model
Parallel
Primary Purpose
Other
Masking
Single (Participant)

Masking Description

The participants were blinded about which group they were allocated (control or intervention)

Eligibility Criteria

Ages
18 Years to 35 Years (Adult)
Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes

Inclusion Criteria

  • no history of motor dysfunction, coordination disorders, or surgical procedures in the past 6 months
  • scored 4 or less on the Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ) on the non-dominant hand.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Played the target task in the past 6 months
  • Subjects were ambidextrous

Arms & Interventions

control group (CG)

Sham Comparator

Physically performed the task once per session. No MI. The physical task is a mirror tracing game that requires participants to trace a star shape viewed through a mirror, going as fast as possible while staying within the lines.

Intervention: NO motor imagery training (Other)

low-dose group (LD)

Experimental

In addition to physically performing the motor task once in session 1, then they performed MI for 6 minutes (2 min x 3 sets) per session. MI for this study took the form of non-guided first-person mental practice. First-person imagery was explained to each participant where they imagined performing the target skill through their own eyes rather than if they were a bystander watching someone else do the task (third person).

Intervention: Motor imagery training (Other)

high-dose group (HD)

Experimental

In addition to physically performing the motor task once in session 1, then MI for 12 minutes (2 min x 6 sets) per session. The MI technique was the same as the LD group.

Intervention: Motor imagery training (Other)

Outcomes

Primary Outcomes

Time

Time Frame: Time was measured at the end of each session, with intervals of 3 session/week for 3 weeks with total of 9 sessions. So, the research ended up with 9 reading for the time.

The time to complete the physical tracing task was measured from when the investigator said 'GO' until the participant returned the pen to the starting point. The physical tracing task is a mirror tracing game that requires participants to trace a star shape viewed through a mirror, going as fast as possible while staying within the lines.

Errors

Time Frame: Errors were counted at the end of each session, with intervals of 3 session/week for 3 weeks with total of 9 sessions. So, the research ended up with 9 reading for the time.

Errors were operationally defined as each time the pen went outside of the shape lines while doing the physical tracing task. Crossing a line and returning to the original trace was counted as one error. Errors were counted by the number of times the pen went outside the lines.

Secondary Outcomes

No secondary outcomes reported

Investigators

Sponsor
Ahmed Mahmoud Kadry
Sponsor Class
Other
Responsible Party
Sponsor Investigator
Principal Investigator

Ahmed Mahmoud Kadry

Associate Professor of Physical Therapy

Kafrelsheikh University

Study Sites (4)

Loading locations...

Similar Trials