Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,203 studies31 sourcesUpdated 40 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYCommunications in Kinesiology

Monitoring gait motor imagery across experimental conditions before and during fMRI

  • Monika Jasenská1
  • Pavel Hok2
  • Martin Hudský3
  • Ondřej Burkot1
  • Barbora Kolářová4
  • Aleš Holobar5
  • Petr Hluštík6
6 affiliations
  1. 1Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Department of Neurology, Olomouc, Czechia; University Hospital Olomouc, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Olomouc, Czechia
  2. 2Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, Department of Neurology, Olomouc, Czechia; Behavioural and Social Neuroscience, Central European Institute of Technology (CEITEC), Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia
  3. 3University Hospital Olomouc, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Olomouc, Czechia
  4. 4University Hospital Olomouc, Department of Rehabilitation, Olomouc, Czechia,
  5. 5University of Maribor, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Maribor, Slovenia
  6. 6University Hospital Olomouc, Department of Neurology, Olomouc, Czechia
Read full textDOICite

Abstract

Introduction: Gait imagery (GI) is widely used in neurorehabilitation and functional neuroimaging to investigate locomotor control without overt movement. Previous studies have shown that GI can induce measurable changes in subsequent motor performance and movement quality (Kolářová et al., 2022). Mental chronometry and imagery vividness have been proposed as practical measures of GI quality and may help characterize individual differences in imagery performance (Thai et al., 2025). However, it remains unclear how GI performance changes across different experimental conditions, particularly when performed in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the temporal evolution of performance of imagined walking and imagery vividness across conditions ranging from sitting immediately after gait practice to repeated GI during fMRI. Methods: Twenty-one healthy volunteers (12 men, 9 women; age 35.1 ± 9.4 years) participated in the study. Participants completed actual overground walking (W), seated GI training (TR), GI while lying supine in the 3 Tesla MRI scanner without image acquisition (MR), and repeated GI during two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) runs (T1, T2). Actual and imagined walking times for a 10-m walking task were recorded. During MRI-related conditions (MR, T1, T2), participants indicated completion of each imagined walking 10-m cycle using a response button. Following each imagery condition, visual and kinesthetic vividness were rated using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very low vividness, 7 = highly vivid imagery). Foot accelerometer data were simultaneously recorded during MRI-related conditions to monitor possible overt lower-limb movements during GI. Results: Mean completion time during actual walking (W) was 8.10 ± 1.89 s (1.24 m/s). Mean GI times were 7.58 ± 2.72 s (1.32 m/s) during seated GI training (TR), 8.27 ± 2.66 s (1.21 m/s) during supine imagery in the MRI scanner without image acquisition (MR), 8.59 ± 2.97 s (1.16 m/s) during the first fMRI run (T1), and 8.74 ± 3.18 s (1.14 m/s) during the second fMRI run (T2). Visual vividness ratings were 4.95 ± 1.10 in TR, 4.62 ± 1.28 in MR, 4.70 ± 1.45 in T1, and 4.84 ± 1.21 in T2. Kinesthetic vividness ratings were consistently lower, reaching 4.35 ± 1.18 in TR, 3.81 ± 0.93 in MR, 4.00 ± 1.30 in T1, and 4.05 ± 1.22 in T2. Both visual and kinesthetic vividness decreased after the transition from seated imagery to the MRI environment and partially recovered during repeated fMRI runs. Conclusions: The MRI environment altered subjective imagery experience, as reflected by reduced visual and kinesthetic vividness, but simultaneously decelerated the performance between imagined and actual walking. Mental chronometry and imagery vividness therefore appear to provide complementary measures of GI quality. Together with movement monitoring, these measures may represent practical control tools for validating GI performance and supporting the interpretation of subsequent fMRI analyses. Acknowledgements: MJ, BK and PeH were supported by MH CZ – DRO (FNOL, 00098892). AH was supported by Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (J2-60046, P2-0041). PH was supported by the Grant Agency of Masaryk University project MUNI/SC/1939/2024.

Related

  1. Foodporn for e-priming healthy food choices among adolescents: an experimental study using appealing food imagery
    Tavleen Kaur, Archana Konapur, Thirupathi Reddy Mokalla +1
    BMC Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textEpidemiology & public healthPMC
  2. Movement Intensity in the Minutes Before a Fall: A Lag-Controlled, Activity-Matched Time-Stratified Case-Crossover Analysis of Home Monitoring in Multiple Sclerosis
    Irina Naskinova, Mikhail Kolev, Meglena Lazarova +2
    Journal of Clinical MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0General medicineCrossref
  3. Editorial: BCIs for monitoring and treating mental health conditions
    Bettina Habelt, Bettina Habelt, Bettina Habelt +1
    Frontiers in Human NeurosciencePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textNeuroscienceGeneral medicineDOAJ
  4. Impact of chlorhexidine gluconate on periurethral cleansing on catheter-associated urinary tract infection: a before-and-after quasi-experimental study at a tertiary care hospital.
    Cheon-Hoo Jeon, Si-Ho Kim, Mi Hyeon Jin +8
    Antimicrobial resistance and infection controlPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textEpidemiology & public healthEurope PMCPMC
  5. Impact of a Simulation-Based Training Program on Cup Detachment During Vacuum-Assisted Vaginal Birth: Protocol for a Multicenter Quasi-Experimental Before-and-After Study.
    Maria Rosa Vila Hernandez, Sara Tameish, Ivan Hurtado +3
    JMIR research protocolsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textPhysiologyEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{jasenska2026monitoring,
  title = {{Monitoring gait motor imagery across experimental conditions before and during fMRI}},
  author = {Monika Jasenská and Pavel Hok and Martin Hudský and Ondřej Burkot and Barbora Kolářová and Aleš Holobar and Petr Hluštík},
  journal = {Communications in Kinesiology},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.51224/cik.2026.8553},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.51224/cik.2026.8553},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Monitoring gait motor imagery across experimental conditions before and during fMRI
AU  - Monika Jasenská
AU  - Pavel Hok
AU  - Martin Hudský
AU  - Ondřej Burkot
AU  - Barbora Kolářová
AU  - Aleš Holobar
AU  - Petr Hluštík
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/03
JO  - Communications in Kinesiology
DO  - 10.51224/cik.2026.8553
UR  - https://doi.org/10.51224/cik.2026.8553
AB  - Introduction: Gait imagery (GI) is widely used in neurorehabilitation and functional neuroimaging to investigate locomotor control without overt movement. Previous studies have shown that GI can induce measurable changes in subsequent motor performance and movement quality (Kolářová et al., 2022). Mental chronometry and imagery vividness have been proposed as practical measures of GI quality and may help characterize individual differences in imagery performance (Thai et al., 2025). However, it remains unclear how GI performance changes across different experimental conditions, particularly when performed in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the temporal evolution of performance of imagined walking and imagery vividness across conditions ranging from sitting immediately after gait practice to repeated GI during fMRI. Methods: Twenty-one healthy volunteers (12 men, 9 women; age 35.1 ± 9.4 years) participated in the study. Participants completed actual overground walking (W), seated GI training (TR), GI while lying supine in the 3 Tesla MRI scanner without image acquisition (MR), and repeated GI during two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) runs (T1, T2). Actual and imagined walking times for a 10-m walking task were recorded. During MRI-related conditions (MR, T1, T2), participants indicated completion of each imagined walking 10-m cycle using a response button. Following each imagery condition, visual and kinesthetic vividness were rated using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very low vividness, 7 = highly vivid imagery). Foot accelerometer data were simultaneously recorded during MRI-related conditions to monitor possible overt lower-limb movements during GI. Results: Mean completion time during actual walking (W) was 8.10 ± 1.89 s (1.24 m/s). Mean GI times were 7.58 ± 2.72 s (1.32 m/s) during seated GI training (TR), 8.27 ± 2.66 s (1.21 m/s) during supine imagery in the MRI scanner without image acquisition (MR), 8.59 ± 2.97 s (1.16 m/s) during the first fMRI run (T1), and 8.74 ± 3.18 s (1.14 m/s) during the second fMRI run (T2). Visual vividness ratings were 4.95 ± 1.10 in TR, 4.62 ± 1.28 in MR, 4.70 ± 1.45 in T1, and 4.84 ± 1.21 in T2. Kinesthetic vividness ratings were consistently lower, reaching 4.35 ± 1.18 in TR, 3.81 ± 0.93 in MR, 4.00 ± 1.30 in T1, and 4.05 ± 1.22 in T2. Both visual and kinesthetic vividness decreased after the transition from seated imagery to the MRI environment and partially recovered during repeated fMRI runs. Conclusions: The MRI environment altered subjective imagery experience, as reflected by reduced visual and kinesthetic vividness, but simultaneously decelerated the performance between imagined and actual walking. Mental chronometry and imagery vividness therefore appear to provide complementary measures of GI quality. Together with movement monitoring, these measures may represent practical control tools for validating GI performance and supporting the interpretation of subsequent fMRI analyses. Acknowledgements: MJ, BK and PeH were supported by MH CZ – DRO (FNOL, 00098892). AH was supported by Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (J2-60046, P2-0041). PH was supported by the Grant Agency of Masaryk University project MUNI/SC/1939/2024.
SN  - 2767-0732
ER  -