Mapping the use of mental imagery for stress management in athletes: a scoping review

Mental imagery is widely used in sport, yet its specific role in helping athletes manage psychological stress has not been systematically mapped, and the term is applied to distinct constructs that are frequently conflated. This scoping review charted the extent, range and nature of the evidence on mental imagery for stress management in athletes, including performance, psychological fatigue and injury-related contexts.

Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and EBSCOhost were searched in January 2024, with an updated search using the same strategy and databases on 27 July 2026. Eligibility was defined using a Population-Concept-Context framework, and reporting followed PRISMA-ScR. After duplicate removal, 1,004 records were screened by two independent reviewers. Retained sources were classified by their role in the review, and imagery was coded on four dimensions: imagery ability, imagery content and function, imagery use, and intervention format. Data were synthesised descriptively and narratively; no meta-analysis or formal quality appraisal was undertaken, consistent with the purpose of a scoping review.

Thirty-nine core empirical studies met both operational gates and were charted, 20 from the original search and 19 from the update; a further 94 sources were retained for narrative or contextual framing. Nineteen (49%) of the charted studies were published in 2023 or later. Of the 39 charted studies, 24 (62%) examined psychological mechanisms, 21 (54%) addressed performance outcomes and psychological fatigue, 13 (33%) examined individual and sport-specific variation, and 7 (18%) concerned injury prevention and rehabilitation. Imagery was most often linked to stress management through appraisal- and emotion-related processes, was commonly embedded within multicomponent psychological-skills programmes, and varied by athlete and sport context. Null and inconclusive findings were also identified, including divergent mediation results and unmet feasibility criteria.

Associations involving imagery ability or imagery use do not by themselves establish intervention efficacy, and outcomes from multicomponent programmes cannot usually be attributed to imagery alone. The evidence map supports clearer construct definitions and component-controlled, longitudinal research rather than causal conclusions about a uniform imagery intervention.