Alternating actual and imagery practice: preliminary theoretical considerations

The main purpose of the following experiments was to reexamine the acquisition effects of alternating actual and imagery practice on retention. This was accomplished by making retention comparisons between groups that either alternated actual and imagery practice, alternated actual practice and rest, employed all actual or all imagery practice, or performed an unrelated task (the control) during acquisition. Results from Experiment 1 indicated that the actual practice and the alternating actual and imagery practice groups produced equivalent scores that were greater than the equivalent scores of the imagery practice and alternating actual practice and rest groups. All experimental groups performed better than the control. Because the retention test was identical to the actual practice protocol, practice specificity may have biased the retention relative standings in favor of the actual practice group. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1 except subjects were transferred to a contralateral limb retention test. Results indicated that the alternating actual and imagery practice group produced better retention scores than the equivalent retention scores of the actual practice and imagery practice groups. These three groups produced higher retention scores than the alternating actual practice and rest group, which was better than the control. These results support the notion that alternating actual and imagery practice facilitates motor learning and suggest that practice specificity may be a factor in response imagery experiments. Based on the notion that actual and imagery practice activate shared and unique mechanisms, several hypotheses were offered to explain these results.