Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Studies examining the effects of action observation (AO) on ipsilateral versus contralateral upper limb (UL) motor performance have reported mixed findings. Furthermore, the extent to which the cognitive component of sequence observation contributes to AO-related improvements in motor sequence execution remains unclear. The investigators aimed to determine whether observing unilateral UL reaching movement (RM) sequences affects UL RM performance in an effector-dependent or effector-independent manner in healthy adults and to determine the contribution of the cognitive aspect, particularly sequence memory, to the motor performance. Sixty participants randomly participated in a single-session intervention of (1) observing RM sequences with the non-dominant left UL (AO group); or (2) observing identical light switches sequences (SO group); or (3) observing nature films (Nature Observation (NO) group). Sequential RMs of both the left and right ULs (ipsilateral and contralateral to the observed movements, respectively) toward the light switches were tested before and immediately after the intervention, and retested after 24 h.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Action Observation (AO) | Experimental | Observing a video recording of a model performing the task |
|
| Sequence Observation (SO) | Active Comparator | Observing a video of the sequence being illuminated on the device without observing any human movements |
|
| Neutral Observation (NO) | Sham Comparator | Observing a neutral video of nature veiws without any human movement |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Action observation (AO) | Behavioral | Participants observed reaching movement sequence performed by the left upper limb toward light switches (10 blocks of video clips, each containing 5 sequences (totaling 300 reaching movements), with a 10 second rest period between blocks). |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in response time (s) from baseline to post-test | Average time of movements, measured from the time the switch lights up until it is pressed | baseline - before the training session, post-test - immediately after the training session |
| Change in response time (s) from post-test to follow up | Average time of movements, measured from the time the switch lights up until it is pressed | post-test - immediately after the training session, follow up - 24 hours after the training session |
| Change in response time (s) from baseline to follow up | Average time of movements, measured from the time the switch lights up until it is pressed | baseline - before the training session, follow up - 24 hours after the training session |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in failure (%) from baseline to post-test | Percentage of the reaching movements in which the participant failed to reach the switch in the allotted time (1 sec) or pressed the wrong buzzer | baseline - before the training session, post-test - immediately after the training session |
| Change in failure (%) from post-test to follow up |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
right-hand dominance and self-reported as healthy
Exclusion Criteria:
having musculoskeletal or neurological deficits interfering with task performance (proper UL and LL reaching performance)
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brain and Motor Behavior Laboratory based at Ariel University, Israel | Ariel | 40700 | Israel |
The datasets (Study Protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan, Informed Consent Form, Analytic Code generated during and/or analyzed during the current study) will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Sequence observation (SO) | Behavioral | Participants observed a video clip of switches illuminating in the same sequence, from the same egocentric perspective, but without any human movements. The illuminating switches were activated with the same timing and rest periods as those in the AO group |
|
| Nature Observation (NO) | Behavioral | Participants observed a neutral movie that consisted of nature views without any human or animal movements. These videos included 10-second blank screen intervals corresponding to the rest periods in the AO and SO video clips |
|
Percentage of the reaching movements in which the participant failed to reach the switch in the allotted time (1 sec) or pressed the wrong buzzer. |
| post-test - immediately after the training session, follow up - 24 hours after the training session |
| Change in failure (%) from base line to follow up | Percentage of the reaching movements in which the participant failed to reach the switch in the allotted time (1 sec) or pressed the wrong buzzer. | baseline - before the training session, follow up - 24 hours after the training session |