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.
©2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston