Utilization of motor imagery in upper limb rehabilitation: a systematic scoping review

Objective: To determine how motor imagery is being delivered in upper limb rehabilitation to guide practice and research. Data source: MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO databases were searched from 1987 to November 2014 Study selection: English, adults, any clinical population or diagnosis,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical rehabilitation 2015-11, Vol.29 (11), p.1092-1107
Main Authors: Harris, JE, Hebert, A
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Brain research
Built environment
Case-Control Studies
Emotions
Emulation
Extraction
Female
Humans
Imagery
Imagery (Psychotherapy) - methods
Intervention
Learning environment
Male
Medical diagnosis
Motor Skills - physiology
Pain
Paresis - etiology
Paresis - psychology
Paresis - rehabilitation
Prognosis
Psychologists
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Recovery of Function - physiology
Regional variations
Rehabilitation
Risk Factors
Stroke
Stroke - complications
Stroke - diagnosis
Stroke - psychology
Studies
Systematic review
Timing
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective: To determine how motor imagery is being delivered in upper limb rehabilitation to guide practice and research. Data source: MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO databases were searched from 1987 to November 2014 Study selection: English, adults, any clinical population or diagnosis, intervention for upper limb with an outcome measure used. All types of studies were included. Two authors independently selected studies for review using consensus. Data extraction: Seven motor imagery elements were extracted using a model implemented in sport research: PETTLEP model (Physical, Environment, Task, Timing, Learning, Emotion, and Perspective). Results: The search yielded 1107 articles with 1059 excluded leaving 48 articles for full review. A total of 38 articles involved individuals with stroke, five articles involved individuals with complex regional pain syndrome, and five articles for other conditions. Motor imagery elements most commonly described were physical, environment, task, and perspective. Elements less commonly described were timing, learning, and emotional aspects. There were significant differences between study populations (e.g. stroke and complex regional pain syndrome) and within populations on how motor imagery was delivered. Conclusion: Many of the imagery elements reviewed are not being considered or reported on in the selected studies. How motor imagery is being delivered within and between populations is inconsistent, which may lead to difficulties in determining key elements of effectiveness.
ISSN:0269-2155
1477-0873
DOI:10.1177/0269215514566248