Volume 3, Issue 1

This paper provides a review of the literature on the relationship between imagery and sport performance as well as between imagery and the development of mental skills. First, the many anecdotal reports of imagery effectiveness are noted and a definition is provided focusing on the multidimensional nature of imagery. The evidence of the enhancing influence of imagery on sport performance is then examined by looking at the early studies (mental practice), case studies, preparatory imagery, imagery used as part of a mental training package, and the use of imagery by successful athletes. After discussing the limitations in research imagery relating to performance, the focus turned to the relationship of imagery and the development of mental skills (e.g., confidence, dealing with pressure, motivation). Factors affecting imagery effectiveness were highlighted including imagery perspective, type of task, positive versus negative imagery, and timing of imagery. The paper concluded with future directions for research including such areas as amount of time to image, imagery and children, imagery ability, and imagery and performance expertise.

With the present study we addressed the question of whether general motor imagery ability (MIA), as determined by questionnaire, predicts estimation of reachability in children ages 6 to 12 years of age. Estimation of reachability involves the use of motor (kinesthetic) imagery to derive a perceptual/cognitive (verbal) estimate of whether an object is within or out of reach. Our initial prediction was that older children would score higher than their younger counterparts in MIA, resulting in more accurate reach responses. Results indicated that, although younger children's MIA scores were significantly lower than their older counterparts, reach responses were similar. Moreover, relationship analysis indicated a non-significant association between MIA and estimation of reachability. Explanations for the MIA difference focus on differences in cognitive ability and movement experience. Furthermore, we speculated that with the visual information provided by the reach task, the younger children were able to imagine reachability at a level comparable to their older counterparts. In essence, the results suggest that the MIA questionnaire and estimation of reach task tap different processing modes, which account for the differential outcome.

With the present study we compared the use of motor imagery (MI) and visual imagery (VI) in estimating reach. There are indications that with MI there is a visual (action) processing advantage. Alternatively, one could speculate that due to a lifetime of experience with reaching within one's peripersonal space, the difference between imagery techniques would be minimal. Adult right-handers performed estimates of reach via VI and MI at multiple locations in peripersonal and extrapersonal midline space. Data analysis indicated a distinction in which participants were more accurate when using MI. In addition to the basic science nature of these findings, there are possible implications for imagery methodology used in sport and clinical settings.

This study examined the use of imagery according to Paivio's (1985) general analytic framework. The aims were to examine functional differences in imagery use according to the five subscales of the SIQ, to investigate differences in imagery use by competitive level, and to explore the influence on the use of imagery of skills involving a perceptual target (reactive tasks) and without a perceptual target (nonreactive tasks). Participants included 484 individuals (280 male, 204 female), with a mean age of 20.39 (SD = 4.10) from the United Kingdom, Finland, and Australia. The group comprised 84 national, 210 state, 120 district, and 70 recreational level athletes representing 54 sports. Participants completed a demographic information sheet and the Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ). Participants were classified according to competitive level and task type. Results indicated that overall participants used more motivational general-mastery imagery. A one-way multivariate analysis of variance revealed that there were significant differences among the four competitive levels on imagery use with the district level participants reporting significantly higher use of motivational general-arousal (MG-A) imagery than state and national level participants and national level participants reporting higher use of cognitive specific (CS) imagery than recreational level participants. There was also a significant difference between tasks with a perceptual target and tasks with no target for motivational-specific imagery, with higher scores for tasks with a perceptual target. The results suggest the continued evaluation of imagery use in relation to competitive level and support that task type may influence the functional use of imagery in sport.