
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473
PONE-D-23-43363
Research Article
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Vision
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Vision
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Vision
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Sensory Perception
Vision
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Perception
Sensory Perception
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Sensory Perception
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Human Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Human Learning
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Human Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Learning and Memory
Learning
Human Learning
Research and Analysis Methods
Specimen Preparation and Treatment
Mechanical Treatment of Specimens
Sonification
Biology and Life Sciences
Biomechanics
Musculoskeletal Mechanics
Biology and Life Sciences
Physiology
Muscle Physiology
Musculoskeletal Mechanics
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Social Sciences
Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Learning
Biology and Life Sciences
Neuroscience
Learning and Memory
Learning
Physical Sciences
Physics
Classical Mechanics
Kinematics
Research and Analysis Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Statistical Methods
Analysis of Variance
Physical Sciences
Mathematics
Statistics
Statistical Methods
Analysis of Variance
The Effect of Internal and external imagery on learning badminton long serve skill: The role of visual and audiovisual imagery
The Effect Of Internal and external audiovisual imagery
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7105-8877
Parimi Fateme Conceptualization Investigation Methodology Project administration Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 *
Abdoli Behrouz Project administration Supervision Writing – review & editing 2
Ramezanzade Hesam Conceptualization Data curation Project administration Supervision Writing – review & editing 3
Aghdaei Mahin Supervision Writing – review & editing 2
1 Ms in Learning and Motor Control, Department of Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences and Technology in Sport, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences and Technology in Sport, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Sport Science, School of Humanities, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran
Kaiser M. Shamim Editor
Jahangirnagar University, BANGLADESH
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: fateme.parimy@gmail.com
19 9 2024
2024
19 9 e03094732 1 2024
13 8 2024
© 2024 Parimi et al
2024
Parimi et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

This study aimed to examine the impact of internal and external audiovisual imagery on the learning of the badminton long serve skill. A lot of 42 right-handed novice women were selected using availability sampling. Participants were categorized into four groups based on their scores from the visual imagery ability questionnaire and Bucknell auditory questionnaire: Visual-Internal imagery, Visual-External imagery, AudioVisual-Internal imagery and AudioVisual-External imagery groups. To generate an auditory pattern, the shoulder joint’s angular velocity of a skilled individual was recorded and translated into sound based on frequency characteristic changes. Subjects underwent four sessions of 40 trials each and subsequently participated in retention and transfer tests. Performance accuracy of the badminton long serve was assessed using the Scott and Fox standard test and repeated measures ANOVA was employed to compare performance across groups during test stages. While no significant differences were noted between groups during the acquisition stages, indicated that subjects in the AudioVisual imagery conditions outperformed those in Visual imagery during the retention test. Additionally, the AudioVisual-Internal Imagery group demonstrated superior performance compared to other groups. Internal imagery groups also exhibited better performance in the later stages of acquisition, retention and transfer tests compared to external imagery groups. These findings suggest that the incorporation of audiovisual imagery utilizing movement sonification, alongside physical practice, improves skill development more effectively than visual imagery alone.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Learning is characterized as "relatively stable changes in a person’s behavior". It is a complex process that occurs in the nervous system and is not directly observable. Learning can be examined from various angles. Motor learning is a key aspect, referring to a series of processes associated with practice or experience that result in a lasting change in the ability to perform motor skills [1]. The learning of motor skills is greatly influenced by the type of education and practice method. Therefore, there are various methods for educating and practicing motor skills that can improve the learning process and ultimately improve the quality of practice. One effective method commonly used in educational settings is the use of mental imagery. Studies in motor behavior sciences and sports psychology have demonstrated that cognitive interventions such as imagery, along with physical practice, facilitate motor learning [2–4]. Neurological studies suggest that during imagery and mental performance of a skill, the same neural and cognitive operations are activated as during physical practice [5, 6]. Little wonder, then, that recent studies have highlighted the positive role of mental imagery in learning and performing motor skills, based on theories and hypotheses proposed in the field of imagery including the Psycho Neuromuscular Theory, a which posits that mental imagery creates similar neural mechanisms to those during physical practice [4, 7]. According to symbolic learning theory, imagery assists subjects in reviewing the sequence of movements as symbolic components of a task. This increased focus on key task components through imagery contributes to the construction of movement schemas in the primary motor cortex. Additionally, Paivio (1971) stated in the Dual Code Theory that imagery is effective in learning by creating two independent memory codes. It is possible to learn sequences of movements both verbally and visually. Research indicates that these two types of coding are independent, meaning we can forget one code without affecting the memory of the other code.

The majority of research in learning and motor control has concentrated on single sensory dimensions, particularly emphasizing the visual sense. Likewise, studies in the realm of imagery have predominantly centered on visual imagery alone. However, Vealey and Greenleaf [8] define mental imagery as a conscious experience that engages all senses to recreate an event in the mind. According to this broad definition, imagery encompasses various sensory modalities, including visual, kinesthetic, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and taste imagery. Among these sensory aspects, visual imagery has garnered significant interest, with most studies in the field focusing on visual imagery to explore its impact on performance and learning [9–12]. Visual imagery comprises two types: internal and external. Internal imagery involves envisioning the performance from a first-person perspective, akin to what one sees during actual execution. In contrast, external imagery entails observing one’s performance from a third-person perspective. Despite the prominence of visual imagery, other sensory aspects such as auditory imagery have received comparatively less attention. Although some studies suggest the utility of auditory imagery, it remains understudied relative to visual imagery. Auditory imagery involves mentally organizing and analyzing sounds when no auditory stimulus is present, constructing a mental representation of an auditory event [13].

Intons-Peterson [14] defined auditory imagery as "the permanence of an auditory experience made up of its components in long-term memory, in the absence of direct sensory stimulation of that experience." Smith and Holmes [15] demonstrated that utilizing auditory imagery, such as one’s recorded movement sound, improved putting performance in golfers. Additionally, Debarnot and Guillot [16] found that presenting rhythmic motor-related music during imagery practice enhanced temporal coordination between physical and imagery practice, thereby boosting efficacy. Pourmorad Kohan et al. [13] examined the effect of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic imagery on learning basketball shooting skills but found no significant difference among experimental groups. This aligns with Pizzamiglio et al. [17] findings that non-action-related sounds fail to activate the motor and premotor brain areas. In auditory imagery studies, researchers have predominantly utilized sounds from the environment, coaches, or spectators [18], overlooking motor pattern-related sounds. Some studies, the recorded natural sound of the individual’s own performance has been used [15, 19, 20]. Because these natural movement sounds may not represent the motor pattern, in recent researches, the change of kinetic or kinematic parameters related to the motor pattern (which cannot be heard under normal conditions) has been presented to individuals in the form of sound [21–24]. These sounds related to motor are known as sonification. Sonification is a concept used to convert kinetic or kinematic characteristics such as displacement or velocity of one’s motor into auditory patterns, which according to studies can be effective in developing performance and learning [25–30].

Several researchers have demonstrated that combining auditory models (sonification) with visual cues influences movement perception [22, 24, 29, 31, 32]. For instance, Effenberg et al. showed the impact of sonification on learning closed motor skills (indoor rowing technique acquisition) [28]. Ramzanzade et al., in studies on multisensory perception, demonstrated how audiovisual integration affects performance accuracy and motor learning, illustrating the perceptual-motor enrichment effect [30, 33, 34].

Despite evidence of the positive effects of sound-based interventions (sonification) on perception and motor learning, their influence on mental imagery remains unclear. Existing studies have largely employed environmental sounds or music in auditory imagery [13, 15, 18–20] and have predominantly explored imagery in a single-sensory manner. However, some studies have utilized audiovisual imagery based on sonification. Castro et al. [35] found that sonification-based imagery did not affect corticospinal excitability during simple tasks. Conversely, Ramzanzade et al. [36] demonstrated that sonification-based audiovisual imagery increased muscle activity amplitude.

Given the range of muscle activity affected by audiovisual imagery in Ramzanzade’s study, it prompts investigation into whether this effect might also influence motor skill acquisition and learning. The auditory pattern used in this research, combined with visual cues, facilitates the mental rehearsal of movement sequences as symbolic task components (symbolic learning theory). Furthermore, it is anticipated that this auditory pattern aids in subsequent movement sequence recall by establishing an independent memory code (dual coding theory).

Our specific hypotheses were as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Building upon prior research [36] and grounded in symbolic learning and dual coding theories, we hypothesized that audiovisual imagery would be both more likely to occur and more effective compared to visual imagery in facilitating the learning of the badminton long-serve skill.

Hypothesis 2: Given that the auditory pattern utilized in this study (sonified angular velocity of the shoulder joint) provides direct information about the movement pattern itself, we predicted that it would enhance the sense of kinesthetic awareness and be particularly effective under conditions of internal imagery.

2. Research method

This study used a semi-experimental design with a pre-test and post-test structure, employing Available sampling. The participant pool consisted of 42 female students aged between 18–23 years who volunteered for the research.

The G * power software was used to calculate the sample size for the ANOVA repeated measures test (α = .05; β = .95, group number = 4, number of measurement = 5, effect size = .223), one way ANOVA and two way ANOVA (α = .05; β = .85, group number = 4, effect size = .58) [13, 15]. All participants were right-handed and free from neurological, hearing, visual, motor, attention and depression disorders, verified through self-report assessment. All participants provided written consent to participate in the research. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shahid Beheshti University (ethics code: IR.SBU.REC.1401.116).

2.1. Measuring tools

To collect behavioral data, the mental rotation test (MRT), visual imagery ability questionnaire (internal, external, kinesthetic) and Bucknell’s auditory imagery scale (vividness and control) were used. Also, Scott and Fox’s standard test with validity 0.54 and reliability 0.70 was used to record the performance results.

2.1.1. Mental Rotation Test (MRT)

Mental rotation refers to the ability to rotate the mental representations of two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects, which is attributed to the visual representation of such rotation in the human mind [37]. Mental rotation is a cognitive function that helps a person comprehend what has changed in the state of the object. The mental rotation test consists of numbers presented by Shephard and Metzler (1971), which is based on a version of AutoCAD drawing and the mental rotation test of Vanderberg and Kius [37]. There are two types of mental rotation test called V, 20 questions and K, 24 questions. In this research, a 24-question mental rotation test was used. Each problem consists of a target shape on the right and four stimulus shape on the left. Two of the four stimulus shapes are the rotated version of the target shape and the other two shapes are not identical to the target shapes. This test was conducted on a group of students other than the sample of the main research in a preliminary research and the reliability of the test was calculated using the test-retest method as 0.87. A cut-off point of 70% was used to select subjects to participate in the research.

2.1.2. Visual imagery ability questionnaire (external, internal, kinesthetic) (MIQ-3)

This questionnaire, which evaluates visual imagery ability was first presented by Isak, Marks and Russell (1986) to fill the gap in the literature related to motor imagery. The third version of this questionnaire was presented in 2012 by Wilson et al. They designed a modified version of this questionnaire called Visual Imagery 3 (MIQ-3) in order to accurately measure visual imagery components (internal and external) and overcome other shortcomings related to the questionnaire (MIQ-R). This questionnaire evaluates internal, external, and visual imagery. This 24-question questionnaire was measured with a 5-point Likert scale. There were 8 questions to measure the imagery ability of each type of imagery (external, internal, kinesthetic). The results of Wilson et al. (2012) confirmed that this questionnaire has very good construct validity. They also reported good validity for the subscales of this questionnaire including internal visual imagery (0.628), external visual imagery (0.679) and kinesthetic imagery (0.706). Badiei (2013) evaluated the validity and reliability of the motor imagery vividness questionnaire in Iran and found that the questionnaire questions accounted for about 47% of the total variance related to visual, internal and motor imagery vividness and the overall scale, respectively 0.86 and 89. 0, 0.91 and 0.95, which shows the high reliability of this subscale and the overall scale of motor imagery vividness. Also, exploratory factor analysis was used for the construct validity of the questionnaire.

2.1.3. Bucknell auditory imagery scale (vividness and control)

The Bucknell Auditory Imagery Scale (BAIS) is a short self-report scale that includes three main dimensions of auditory experience: musical, verbal, and environmental sounds. For each item in BAIS, a situation is described and then the sound associated with that situation is presented. The subjects are required to make an auditory image of the presented sound. For the vividness subscale (BAIS-V), the subjects are asked to rate their image vividness of sound using a scale of 1 to 7, where one means no image, four means relatively clear, and seven means that the image is as clear as real. No other scale points are labeled. For the control subscale (BAIS-C), each situation and sound is described once again, but the purpose of the rating is to facilitate the image change from the original sound to the new sound. Subjects use a different 7-point scale to rate control, where one means no image, four means being able to change the image, but with effort, and 7 means changing the image very easily. The face and content validity of the Bucknell auditory imagery questionnaire (vividness and control) was confirmed by experts with a content validity coefficient of 0.72.

2.1.4. Scott and Fox badminton long serve standard test

To implement this test, the end of the badminton court was scored with five concentric semi-circles, and based on the landing of the serve hit on each of the designated areas, the score corresponding to that area was recorded for the individuals. The distance between each semi-circle was five centimeters and each semi-circle was given 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 points respectively (Fig 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.g001 Fig 1 Scott and fox badminton long serve standard test.

3. Audiovisual pattern

Initially, a skilled individual with over 10 years of experience performed the badminton long serve, which was recorded using motion analysis equipment equipped with IMU sensors (Inertial Measurement Unit) placed on the arm, forearm, and mid-body. Two cameras were positioned to capture the performance from medial and lateral views (angled at 30 degrees to the sagittal plane). The angular velocity of the shoulder joint during the serve was captured and converted into sound using Sandbox sonification software (Version 6), adjusting the frequency to create an auditory pattern. Subsequently, the auditory pattern was synchronized with the visual performance to create an audiovisual pattern [38].

4. Research methodology

This research was conducted in the form of pre-test, practice sessions, post-test, retention test and transfer test. At the beginning and before the pre-test, the subjects completed personal information form and the consent form indicating voluntary participation in the study. After that, to assess the imagery ability of the subjects, they first participated in the mental rotation test and those right-handed and without neurological, hearing, visual, motor, attention and depression disorders who scored above 70% were selected to participate in the research. And after receiving full explanations from the examiner regarding the types of imagery and their differentiation, in order to match the groups in terms of visual and auditory imagery ability, the subjects completed the following questionnaires: MIQ imagery ability and Bucknell auditory imagery vividness and control questionnaire.

In the pre-test phase, participants performed 10 badminton long serves from the right side of the court, with performances recorded for analysis. Four groups were established: Visual-Internal imagery, Visual-External imagery, AudioVisual-Internal imagery, and AudioVisual-External imagery. Each group underwent four practice sessions comprising 40 trials.

During practice sessions, each group received their respective pattern (visual/audiovisual) followed by 10 imagery trials specific to their group perspective (internal/external) and 20 physical performances. Post-session, participants rested for 5 minutes before repeating the pattern exposure, imagery trials, and physical performance sequence. Following each practice session, participants performed 10 serves for scoring.

Retention and transfer tests occurred 48 hours after the final practice session. The retention test mirrored the pre-test conditions, evaluating serve performance. A transfer test followed, assessing performance with serves from the left side of the court and the scores were recorded based on the Scott and Fox standard tests (Fig 2).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.g002 Fig 2 Overview of research methodology.

4.1. Statistical methods

Performance scores were described using mean and standard deviation. The normality of data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the homogeneity of variances was tested using Levene’s test. Repeated Measures ANOVA was employed to compare groups across acquisition stages (4 groups * 5 stages). One-way ANOVA and two-way ANOVA were used to compare groups in retention and transfer tests. Specifically, one-way ANOVA analyzed group performance in pre-test, retention, and transfer tests, while two-way ANOVA evaluated the interactive effect of imagery type (visual, audiovisual) and perspective (internal, external) in retention and transfer tests.

5. Research findings

Initially, the study compared the visual and auditory imagery abilities of subjects across four research groups during a pre-test phase. The results revealed no significant differences in the level of visual and auditory imagery ability among these groups.

For analyzing the performance during the acquisition sessions, Repeated Measures ANOVA was used. Due to the violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance (Mauchly’s W = 0.516), the Greenhouse-Geisser method was utilized. The findings indicated that the interaction effect (F9.466, 119.905) = 0.787, p = 0.635, Eta = 0.059) and the main effect of group (F3, 38) = 0.503, p = 0.683, Eta = 0.038) were not significant, implying no significant differences in accuracy among the groups across the acquisition phases. However, a significant main effect of the test was observed (F4, 152) = 13.16, p < 0.001, Eta = 0.257), signifying differences across different stages of the test. Bonferroni’s post hoc test indicated significant improvements in performance from the pre-test to the third session (MD = 0.31, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.806) and the fourth session (MD = 0.379, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.338). Additionally, performance in the first session significantly differed from that in the third (MD = 0.236, p = 0.018, Cohen’s d = 0.520) and fourth sessions (MD = 0.305, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.829).

Fig 3 illustrates the performance of the subjects in the four groups during retention and transfer tests. The AudioVisual-Internal imagery group performed notably better in both retention and transfer tests.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.g003 Fig 3 Performance of the subjects in four research groups in retention and transfer tests.

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

The results of the retention test demonstrated a significant group effect (F3, 38) = 4.315, p = 0.01, Eta = 0.254), indicating differences among the groups. Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis revealed significant differences between the performance of the AudioVisual-Internal group and the Visual-Internal (MD = 0.236, p = 0.049, Cohen’s d = 1.643), Visual-External (MD = 0.418, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.755), and AudioVisual-External groups (MD = 0.278, p = 0.025, Cohen’s d = 0.914), all in favor of the AudioVisual-Internal group. No significant differences were observed among the other groups.

Based on the results of the transfer test, a significant group effect was observed (F3, 38) = 4.499, p = 0.009, Eta = 0.262), indicating differences among the research groups in the transfer test. Bonferroni’s post hoc test identified significant differences between the performance of the AudioVisual-Internal group and the Visual-External (MD = 0.299, p = 0.029, Cohen’s d = 1.502) and AudioVisual-External groups (MD = 0.289, p = 0.038, Cohen’s d = 1.213), favoring the AudioVisual-Internal group. However, no significant difference was observed between the AudioVisual-Internal and Visual-Internal groups.

Fig 4 illustrates the performance comparison between Visual imagery and AudioVisual imagery groups in the retention and transfer tests. It is evident from Fig 3 that the AudioVisual imagery groups outperformed the Visual imagery groups in the retention test.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.g004 Fig 4 Performance comparison of visual imagery and audiovisual imagery groups in retention and transfer tests.

* p < 0.05.

Fig 5 depicts the performance comparison between Internal and External imagery groups in the retention and transfer tests. As shown in Fig 4, the internal imagery groups exhibited superior performance compared to the external imagery groups in both retention and transfer tests.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.g005 Fig 5 Performance comparison of internal and external imagery groups in retention and transfer tests.

** p < 0.01.

The results of two-way ANOVA for the retention test revealed significant main effects of imagery perspective (F1, 38) = 7.476, p = 0.009, Cohen’s d = 0.798) and imagery sense (F1, 38) = 5.005, p = 0.031, Cohen’s d = 0.655). These findings underscore that regardless of the imagery sense (Visual or AudioVisual), there is a significant advantage for internal imagery over external imagery. Additionally, the results showed a significant difference between visual and audiovisual imagery, favoring audiovisual imagery, irrespective of the imagery perspective (internal or external).

In the transfer test, the two-way ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of imagery perspective (F1, 38) = 12.785, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.113), suggesting that regardless of the imagery sense (visual or audiovisual), internal imagery yields better performance than external imagery. However, the main effect of imagery sense was not significant (F1, 38) = 0.420, p = 0.521, Cohen’s d = 0.181), indicating no significant difference between visual and AudioVisual imagery in the transfer test, irrespective of the imagery perspective (internal or external).

6. Discussion and conclusion

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of internal and external audiovisual imagery on the performance of the badminton long serve across the stages of acquisition, retention, and transfer. The findings revealed that while all groups showed improvement during the acquisition sessions, there was no significant difference between groups in terms of execution accuracy during this phase. However, the AudioVisual-Internal group exhibited a notable advantage over other groups in the retention test.

The lack of significant differences in execution accuracy during acquisition could be attributed to the increased cognitive workload experienced by the AudioVisual groups. In the acquisition stage, participants in these groups needed to process both visual and auditory patterns simultaneously, integrating them during the cognitive phase of learning. This increased demand likely overwhelmed working memory capacity. Previous studies by Schmidt et al. [39] and Hasting & West [40] have demonstrated that working memory, essential for complex cognitive tasks, can negatively impact performance under conditions of overload. Furthermore, the introduction of unfamiliar sonified sounds in the audiovisual stimulus may have drawn excessive attention, diverting cognitive resources away from performance analysis. Kanmen [41] suggests that novel stimuli can pose cognitive challenges, particularly affecting individuals’ ability to process information optimally. For beginner-level participants, the heightened challenge posed by the amount and complexity of information in the audiovisual pattern likely hindered optimal performance during practice sessions [42].

Generally speaking, in practice sessions, performance can often misrepresent learning due to the influence of various performance variables and the presence of performance plateaus.

The results observed during the acquisition stages can be elucidated using the motor behavior-memory framework [43]. According to this framework, a distinction between performance and learning emerges, particularly evident when challenging practice conditions may hinder immediate performance but improve long-term retention of motor skills. This framework underscores three key memory processes (encoding, consolidation, and retrieval) that operate over the course of behavior, reflected in the stages of practice, post-practice interval, and long-term retention. During the acquisition phase, encoding processes predominate as the learner practices the motor skill. This phase involves cognitive processes such as stimulus identification, response selection, and execution, which may be influenced by cognitive interventions similar to those employed in the present study. The impact of these cognitive processes during encoding can lead to performance differences observed in subsequent retention tests, where motor memory is stabilized. Therefore, retention and transfer tests can be more effective means of assessing learning [1]. It is recommended that the outcomes of this study be complemented with performance process assessments (e.g., kinematic analysis) during the acquisition phase. This approach can help differentiate interventions made during trial and error for beginner subjects, highlighting changes in the performance process rather than solely focusing on outcomes. It has also been demonstrated that the effects of cognitive interventions on performance may manifest with a delay compared to motor interventions. Considering the improvement observed in the audiovisual groups during practice sessions (see Fig 2), there is a possibility and guesswork that continued practice sessions may reveal distinct performance differences between groups as a consequence of interventions implemented during the acquisition phases.

In the retention test, a significant and sizeable effect favoring AudioVisual imagery over Visual imagery groups was observed. This finding suggests that reducing cognitive load during the retention test, achieved by removing the pattern observation and subsequent imagery requirements, allowed subjects in the AudioVisual groups to perform better than those in the Visual imagery groups. This effect can be attributed to the multi-sensory practice efforts during the acquisition sessions involving audiovisual imagery. Participants in the AudioVisual group, while initially focusing internally during acquisition, likely implicitly acquired information through consistent exposure to models and imagery, leading to improved performance in the retention test when pattern and imagery were removed [43, 44]. Studies by Schmidt et al. [45], indicate that motor sonification improves activity in the action observation system, including subcortical motor loop structures. Multi-sensory integration mechanisms compensate for visual information deficits by utilizing the auditory sense when visual information is insufficient [46]. Schmidt et al. [45] also showed that regions such as the superior temporal sulcus (STS) and mirror neurons involved in visual perception are activated during auditory perception with sounds obtained from motor itself as part of audiovisual integration and facilitates learning processes. Research shows that auditory mirror neurons are activated only when sounds related to the kinematics of the motor pattern are used [17]. According to modeling theory, imagery is a form of modeling where individuals observe and implement modeled behavior themselves. Gibson’s theory of direct perception suggests that audiovisual imagery allows direct reception of specific movement-related information, facilitating learning. Attention to sonified sounds likely helps movement detail retention and prevents forgetting, influencing learning outcomes. Additionally, hearing is more accurate and precise than vision in timing perception, making it ideal for perceiving joint angle velocity. Auditory imagery preserves auditory stimuli characteristics, aiding motor timing [14, 47, 48]. In addition, sound is effective in perceiving the order of movement.

Multisensory stimuli are processed more efficiently and accurately than unisensory stimuli, improving the reception and quality of mental images with audiovisual convergence. Recent studies demonstrate higher muscle activity intensity during audiovisual imagery compared to visual imagery, indicating a stronger effect of this type of imagery [36]. Previous research highlighting the benefits of auditory imagery often used music or sport-related sounds [15, 48] Suggest a relationship between motor timing prediction and musical imagery ability, supporting the notion that simultaneous visual and auditory pattern exposure during audiovisual imagery improves motor pattern timing in mental images, thereby enhancing learning outcomes beyond those of visual imagery alone [49, 50].

The transfer test results revealed no significant difference between visual and audiovisual imagery. It is important to note that the transfer test assesses an individual’s ability to adapt to new conditions, serving as an indicator of learning ability. The lack of difference observed in this study between audiovisual and visual imagery during the transfer test suggests that the level of mental and physical practice undertaken did not sufficiently improve subjects’ skills to a level necessary for effective performance in different conditions.

The subjects, who engaged in both physical and mental practice from only one side of the court, likely did not develop the necessary level of skill transfer needed to perform effectively when faced with changes in court layout and angles. This suggests that additional or varied practice conditions may be required to improve skill transfer and adaptability in different scenarios.

The results of this study also demonstrated that during the retention test, the performance of the AudioVisual-Internal group significantly outperformed other groups, suggesting that internal imagery effectively activates the motor and kinesthetic senses. According to the input and output processing hypotheses, muscle stimulation occurs covertly during motor imagery [51]. Therefore, the benefits of motor imagery can be explained through these hypotheses. Input processing suggests that motor imagery activates muscular and peripheral structures, providing proprioceptive feedback to the central nervous system. On the other hand, output processing suggests that motor imagery induces changes in the central motor program, with observed electromyography (EMG) activity serving as evidence of imagery’s impact and benefits [52]. Moreover, studies have indicated higher levels of EMG activity during motor imagery using internal visual imagery [53, 54]. Rodgers et al. [55] proposed that internal imagery is particularly effective in creating motor images compared to external imagery.

In this study, the velocity of the shoulder joint angle was converted into sound and presented as an auditory pattern. This auditory pattern provided subjects with information about motor kinematics and the nature of the movement itself. Therefore, during AudioVisual-Internal imagery, combining auditory-motor information (sonification of shoulder joint angular velocity) with internal imagery (strong potential for creating kinesthetic images or a sense of motor) resulted in increased muscle involvement, which was evident in actual performance. These findings align with Ramzanzade et al.’s [36] study, which showed that muscle activity intensity is higher during AudioVisual-Internal and AudioVisual-Kinesthetic imagery compared to Visual imagery conditions (internal or kinesthetic), but no such difference was observed with AudioVisual-External imagery. Ramzanzade et al. [36] also demonstrated a relationship between the ability of internal and kinesthetic imagery. However, these results differ from those of Lutz [51], who suggested that muscle activity is a by-product of brain processing and does not contribute to the acquisition and retention of motor performance. Lutz’s study [51] indicated that although motor imagery increases muscle activation, it does not impact acquisition and learning. In contrast to Lutz’s argument, according to the input processing hypothesis, imagery leading to increased muscle activity provides sensory feedback to the brain, potentially helping acquisition and learning [52].

Finally, this study also showed that internal imagery, regardless of whether it is visual or audiovisual, has a greater impact on performance during retention and transfer tests compared to external imagery. This finding is particularly relevant for the badminton long serve, which is classified as a closed skill, suggesting that closed skills benefit from a stronger focus on internal imagery [56, 57]. This relationship likely stems from the ability of internal imagery to improve the motor sense crucial for representing closed skills [58, 59]. These findings align with previous research on closed skills such as dart throwing [56, 60], tennis serving [61], badminton serving [58] and football passing [12], all of which highlight the effectiveness of internal imagery. Studies have also shown that subjects using imagery from an external perspective record greater levels of EMG activity during MI [53, 54].

In this study focused on learning the badminton long serve, the impact of audiovisual imagery was investigated. Although no significant differences were observed during the acquisition stage between groups, participants in the audiovisual imagery condition demonstrated superior performance during the retention test compared to those in the visual imagery condition. Additionally, during the transfer test, the internal audiovisual group exhibited significantly higher performance than both the internal visual and external visual groups. These results indicate that using audiovisual imagery based on motor sonification helps skill development more effectively than visual imagery alone through practice. Furthermore, the AudioVisual-Internal imagery group outperformed the other groups, likely due to the auditory pattern providing detailed information about skill mechanics (skill pattern) in alignment with the motor sense cultivated by internal imagery. This synergy likely resulted in imagery with higher vividness and control, translating to improved performance. Overall, the use of audiovisual imagery incorporating sonification appears to improve the quality of imagery and subsequently impact performance and learning. However, further research is warranted to examine this topic in more depth and refine our understanding.

7. Limitation

One of the most important limitations of this research is that only the result has been recorded and the execution process, which includes kinematic analysis, has not been recorded. It is suggested that the execution process be investigated in future studies.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix (SAV)

The authors would like to show appreciation to the participants in this research.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.r001
Decision Letter 0
Sil Annesha Staff Editor
© 2024 Annesha Sil
2024
Annesha Sil
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
20 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-43363The Effect of Internal and External Audiovisual Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve SkillPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Parimi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

This manuscript has been assessed by 3 reviewers and their comments are available below. They feel the manuscript would benefit from thorough copyediting for proper English language usage and grammar, more methodological details and justification as well as improvements made to the discussion. Could you please carefully revise the manuscript to address all the comments made by the reviewers? 

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 04 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Annesha Sil, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Referring to PONE-D-23-43363

Title: The Effect of Internal and External Audiovisual Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill

This study aims to investigate the effect of internal and external audiovisual imagery on learning badminton long serve skill. It is explores the influence of different motor imagery methods on motor learning and performance. It's a very interesting topic and valuable for educational implications in sport. The unique auditory model used in this research (based on which the characteristics kinematics of the movement has been converted into sound) and its use in motor imagery is the new approach of this research in motor imagery. Below are some suggestions that should be considered by the authors of the manuscript:

Abstract

In the abstract of the manuscript, the result of comparing the internal and external imagery groups should be reported.

Introduction

In the introduction, it is suggested to refer to the researches that have investigated the effect of sonification-based intervention on performance and motor learning.

Research Method

� In line 202, refer to the source of sonification sandbox software

� It is better to present the research protocol in the form of a table

Research findings

In the findings section, a number of effect sizes not reported. Be sure to report effect sizes for all pairwise comparison.

Discussion and conclusion

The discussion of this manuscript is well written and the explanation of the results is good based on previous researches and the proposed hypotheses. It seems that the effect of the intervention in this research is first on the quality of motor imagery and then on performance and motor learning. Therefore, it is better to mention this topic at the end of the discussion.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript aimed to evaluate the effects of internal and external audiovisual imagery on learning badminton long serve skill and the results showed that audio-visual internal imagery have a significant effect on learning badminton long serve skill. The manuscript suffers from major and minor problems as follows:

1. First of all, I need to point out that the language of the article is not appropriate and should be improved.

2. Please add the sampling method and statistical analysis methods to the abstract.

3. In the article, some terms are not used correctly, it is necessary to check all specialized terms again. For example, in some places you should use performance instead of execution.

4. The background section in the introduction is not well written and the results of some consecutive studies are reported. It is suggested to be rewritten.

5. In the last paragraph of the introduction, use retention instead of “retetion”. Check the spelling of words throughout the article.

6. Why did you use novice participants in the present study? Is it effective to use imagery at this stage and before learning the motor pattern?

7. In the method section, it is necessary to mention the sampling method and the method of determining the sample size.

8. Did you use the statistical method of mixed design ANOVA in the acquisition phase? It seems that the analysis of 4 groups * 5 stages of the test with repetition of the last factor has been used.

9. It is suggested to remove the tables and report the results in text form.

10. The quality of the figures in the article is not suitable. It is suggested to improve the quality of the presentation and to mention the error bar and significant differences in the figures.

11. In the first paragraph of the discussion, only mention the purpose and results. It is not necessary to mention all the details of the method of research.

12. The discussion section needs to be reorganized. It is necessary to compare the results of the study with previous studies and then explain the findings.

Reviewer #3: The work entitled "The Effects of Internal and External Audio-Visual Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill" aimed to investigate the effects of motor imagery on motor learning. The study compared four conditions derived from the association of two independent variables: internal and external motor imagery, and visual and audio-visual imagery groups. The authors identified that there was no significant difference among groups during practice. However, the audio-visual-internal imagery group demonstrated better performance in the retention and transfer tests. Unfortunately, due to some inconsistencies in the rationale, internal coherence (rationale, methods, result discussion) analysis, and discussion, I suggest the non-acceptance of the work for publication. However, I believe that if the authors address the following topics, they could have a better outcome in further submission. I hope that my feedback can help them.

It has been noted that there are some mistakes in the manuscript, and it is recommended that the English language be assessed by a native speaker.

Title: Authors should focus on their two independent variables, namely internal versus external motor imagery and audiovisual versus visual motor imagery. The title seems to focus only on internal x external.

Introduction:

Line 52: Learning is not related to lifelong processes in the Motor Behavior area. Instead, Motor Development studies investigate motor behavior across the lifespan.

Line 54: Please use the traditional motor learning concept, "a series of processes associated with practice or experience that led to a relatively permanent change in the capacity to perform motor skills." I suggest reading "Motor Learning and Control" by Schmidt to verify why the words in the concept are important.

Line 57: What exactly does "accelerate learning" mean? Does it refer to acquiring motor skills quickly? Definitely, it is not assessed in motor learning. Maybe enhancing the process is a better alternative.

Line 61: The authors did not have neuroimage data to introduce or discuss neurophysiological mechanisms. Classic motor learning studies provide sufficient evidence and mechanisms at the behavioral level of analysis to support this study.

Line 65: Psycho Neuromuscular Theory is not the best option for the mechanisms that could influence motor learning by motor imagery. Please revisit classic books on motor learning (Schmidt, Magill, etc.).

Line 67: Avoid long paragraphs like this one as they complicate the reader's understanding.

Line 110: Again, keep the mechanisms at the behavioral level, given that the authors do not have data about neuroexcitability.

Line 121: It is a little confusing as the introduction does not guide the reader to investigate the inclusion of audio in visual imagery from internal and external perspectives. For me, the introduction needs to be rewritten to focus specifically on the gap in the literature regarding internal versus external and audio versus audiovisual imagery. The rationale is not strong enough and needs to be recreated.

Research Methods

Sample Size Calculation:

The manuscript lacks information on sample size calculation. Authors are encouraged to provide details regarding how the sample size was determined for the study.

Line 128: Clarify how each inclusion criterion was assessed. For instance, specify the methods used to confirm that participants were right-handed and free from neurological, hearing, visual (mention if a visual acuity test was employed), motor (explain the assessment method), attention (mention if MoCA - Montreal Cognitive Assessment - was utilized), and depression disorders (indicate if Beck Depression Scale was administered).

Line 129:- The English needs improvement. A suggested revision is: "All participants provided written consent to participate in the research."

Line 206:- Consider using the term "post-test" instead of "acquisition test." In general, in motor learning studies acquisition phase refers to phase across pre-test, blocks of practice and post-test.

Line 210): Include additional information in the inclusion criteria, such as: "Participants who scored above 70% on the mental rotation test were selected to participate in the research."

Lines 222-239: The description appears to be redundant and repetitive. Authors are advised to revise and streamline this section for clarity and conciseness.

Line 235: Provide a clear explanation of the terms "internal" and "external." Consider introducing this information in the introduction section for better contextual understanding.

Line 44 and Throughout Manuscript: Avoid using "attempt"; use "trial" instead. Ensure consistency in language usage across the entire manuscript.

Statistical Methods:

What exactly was the measure? Radial error? Mean error? Variable error? Please revisit Schmidt et al 2019, or Magill e Anderson 2021, to ensure the measures are ok.

The authors explain the analyses here, but they describe the analyses in the results section again. Please be sure that all explanations about the analyses (and how it align with your rational and aims) are explained here, just here.

Research Findings:

I strongly recommend considering the incorporation of error bars in your graphs. This addition is crucial for a comprehensive analysis of your results, providing valuable insights into the variability and precision of the data.

It is essential to ensure a standardized use of colors across groups in your line graphs. Consistency in color representation enhances visual clarity and facilitates accurate interpretation.

Authors might consider avoiding the inclusion of a table with ANOVA results. Providing a descriptive summary in the text and using line graphs to indicate statistical significance could be sufficient for clarity and conciseness.

I recommend reconsidering the reanalysis of data based on the internal and external, and audiovisual x visual factors. It is crucial to address potential confounding variables appropriately. Analyzing subgroups together might not be suitable when there are two independent variables influencing the outcome. Separate analyses for each variable could provide more accurate insights.

Performing a two-way ANOVA (post-test x retention; groups) may reveal essential aspects about the consolidation effect of imagery. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how groups retain, lose, or enhance their improvements during the consolidation phase, potentially providing richer insights compared to a one-way ANOVA in retention or transfer alone.

Discussion Enhancement Response:

The first two paragraphs in the Discussion section should be removed. There is no need to reiterate methodological details in this section.

- It's important to keep the discussion focused on the behavioral level since no neurophysiological measures were employed.

- Emphasize that the audio-visual intervention did not show an effect during the acquisition phase; its impact was consolidation-dependent. See Kantak and Winstein (2012) to provide a framework for understanding the phases of motor memory affected by your intervention.

Line 373: You do not have cognitive effort measure to state any intervention effect on that during practice. Please avoid this extrapolation.

- Ensure accuracy in referencing Challenge Point Hypothesis to avoid confusion. Challenge Point is not related to your study object.

- Clarify the distinction between learning plateau and performance plateau in line 398. Use the appropriate term to convey the intended meaning.

- Acknowledge the speculative nature of the sentence in line 404, given that the data do not support the inference made.

- Your study is not a implicit motor learning study (line 416).

- Ensure consistency and accuracy in referencing Schmidt's name throughout the text (there is another author with similar name).

- Clearly differentiate between Gibson's Ecological Approach and mirror neuron theory (information processing). Ensure that inferences align with a coherent theory of motor behavior. There is no option to speculate the effect of your intervention using the two theories simultaneously.

- Break down the lengthy paragraph at 410 into more digestible sections for improved readability.

- Clearly state that the absence of a sample size calculation is a limitation, as opposed to considering the number of participants a limitation. Kinematic measure absence is not a limitation; it is a characteristic.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Giordano Marcio Gatinho Bonuzzi

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment Submitted filename: Review of PLOS ONE-D-23-43363.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
21 May 2024

Re: The Effect of Internal and External Audiovisual Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill: The role of visual and audiovisual imagery

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have greatly appreciate the time and effort put forth by the reviewers, whose insightful comments have allowed us to significantly improve the quality of our work. Below, we have provided point-by-point responses to the reviewers' comments and have highlighted the corresponding changes made to the manuscript in blue font. We hope that the revised manuscript now meets the journal's standards for publication and look forward to your decision.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Reviewer 1:

General comments

This study aims to investigate the effect of internal and external audiovisual imagery on learning badminton long serve skill. It is explores the influence of different motor imagery methods on motor learning and performance. It's a very interesting topic and valuable for educational implications in sport. The unique auditory model used in this research (based on which the characteristics kinematics of the movement has been converted into sound) and its use in motor imagery is the new approach of this research in motor imagery. Below are some suggestions that should be considered by the authors of the manuscript:

Response:

We are grateful for the reviewer's detailed feedback, which has proven invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our work.

Specific comments

Abstract

In the abstract of the manuscript, the result of comparing the internal and external imagery groups should be reported.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The result of comparing the internal and external imagery groups has been included in the revised abstract (Line 44-46).

Introduction

In the introduction, it is suggested to refer to the researches that have investigated the effect of sonification-based intervention on performance and motor learning.

Response: Thank you for the comment. Lines 112 -116 now mention relevant studies.

Research Method

� In line 202, refer to the source of sonification sandbox software.

Response: Thank you for the thoughtful comment. The source of the sandbox software has been added. Lines 222, 556.

Walker BN, Cothran JT. Sonification Sandbox a graphical toolkit for auditory graphs. Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory Display; 2003; Boston MA, USA. p. 6-9.

� It is better to present the research protocol in the form of a table

Response: Thank you for the comment. A research protocol table has been included in the revised manuscript. (Figure 2)

Research findings

In the findings section, a number of effect sizes not reported. Be sure to report effect sizes for all pairwise comparison.

Response: Thank you for the careful comment. The findings section has been completed. Lines 263-314.

Discussion and conclusion

The discussion of this manuscript is well written and the explanation of the results is good based on previous researches and the proposed hypotheses. It seems that the effect of the intervention in this research is first on the quality of motor imagery and then on performance and motor learning. Therefore, it is better to mention this topic at the end of the discussion.

Response: Thank you for the attention. This topic has now been mentioned. Lines 451 and 452.

Reviewer 2:

General comments

This manuscript aimed to evaluate the effects of internal and external audiovisual imagery on learning badminton long serve skill and the results showed that audio-visual internal imagery have a significant effect on learning badminton long serve skill. The manuscript suffers from major and minor problems as follows:

Response:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's detailed comments, which have significantly enhanced the paper's quality. We value the ability to identify various aspects of the article and provide valuable Feedback.

Specific comments

1. First of all, I need to point out that the language of the article is not appropriate and should be improved.

Response: Thank you for the careful reading. As suggested, the paper has been reviewed and revised by a native English speaker. Several edits and corrections have been made in the main text to improve readability.

2. Please add the sampling method and statistical analysis methods to the abstract.

Response: Thank you for the comment. The sampling method and statistical analysis methods have been added to the abstract (Lines 32 and 40).

3. In the article, some terms are not used correctly, it is necessary to check all specialized terms again. For example, in some places you should use performance instead of execution.

Response: Thanks for the notice. The correction has been made.

4. The background section in the introduction is not well written and the results of some consecutive studies are reported. It is suggested to be rewritten.

Response: Thank you for the comment. The introduction has been completely revised, and research hypotheses have been added to the end of the introduction.

5. In the last paragraph of the introduction, use retention instead of “retetion”. Check the spelling of words throughout the article.

Response: Thank you for the careful comment. The correction has been made.

6. Why did you use novice participants in the present study? Is it effective to use imagery at this stage and before learning the motor pattern?

Response: Thank you for the comment.

Imagery has two important functions: motivational and educational. The educational function includes techniques and tactics (strategies) practice. In the techniques practice function, the main purpose is to teach the motor pattern to novices. Many studies in motor behavior have investigated the effects of interventions on novices whit no prior experience who are in the cognitive stage of learning. Some examples of these studies are:

Driskell, J., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 481-492.

Carien, R., Taktek, K., Hatchi, V., & Dominique, L. (2023). Effect of motor imagery training on service performance in novice tennis players: the role of imagery ability. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1–13. .

Frank, C. (2016). Learning a motor action "From Within": Insight into perceptual-cognitive changes with mental and physical practice. Sport and Exercise Psychology Research, 91-121. 10.1016/B978-0-12-803634-1.00005-4

7. In the method section, it is necessary to mention the sampling method and the method of determining the sample size.

Response: Thank you. In this research available sampling was used. Lines 143, 145-147.

The G * power software was used to calculate the sample size for the ANOVA repeated measures test (α = .05; β= .95, group number = 4, number of measurement= 5, effect size = .223) (Pourmorad Kohan, Hatami & Baghaiyan, 2016), one way ANOVA and two way ANOVA (α = .05; β= .85, group number = 4, effect size = .58) (Smith & Holmes, 2004; Marshall & Gibson, 2017).

Smith, D., & Holmes, P. (2004). The effect of imagery modality on golf putting performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26(3), 385-395.

Marshall, E. A., & Gibson, A. M. (2017). The effect of an imagery training intervention on self-confidence, anxiety and performance in acrobatic gymnastics–a pilot study. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 12(1), 20160009.

Pour Morad Kohan P, Hatami F, Baghaiyan M. The Effects of Sensory Modalities of Mental Imagery on Learning Lay-up Shot in Basketball. Motor Behavior. 2016;8 (26):173-88.

8. Did you use the statistical method of mixed design ANOVA in the acquisition phase? It seems that the analysis of 4 groups * 5 stages of the test with repetition of the last factor has been used.

Response: We conducted a factorial analysis (4 groups x 5 stages) to compare group performance during the acquisition stages. One-way ANOVA was used to compare group performance on the retention and transfer tests. Additionally, two-way ANOVA examined the interactive effects of imagery type (visual, audiovisual) and perspective (internal, external) on retention and transfer test performance.

9. It is suggested to remove the tables and report the results in text form.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have removed the tables and instead reported the results in written form within the text.

10. The quality of the figures in the article is not suitable. It is suggested to improve the quality of the presentation and to mention the error bar and significant differences in the figures.

Response: Thank you for your careful comment. The figures have been revised accordingly.

11. In the first paragraph of the discussion, only mention the purpose and results. It is not necessary to mention all the details of the method of research.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The extraneous details have been removed. (Lines 317-322)

12. The discussion section needs to be reorganized. It is necessary to compare the results of the study with previous studies and then explain the findings.

Response: Thank you for your careful comment. We have incorporated some useful changes in the discussion section.

Reviewer 3:

General comments

The work entitled "The Effects of Internal and External Audio-Visual Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill" aimed to investigate the effects of motor imagery on motor learning. The study compared four conditions derived from the association of two independent variables: internal and external motor imagery, and visual and audio-visual imagery groups. The authors identified that there was no significant difference among groups during practice. However, the audio-visual-internal imagery group demonstrated better performance in the retention and transfer tests. Unfortunately, due to some inconsistencies in the rationale, internal coherence (rationale, methods, result discussion) analysis, and discussion, I suggest the non-acceptance of the work for publication. However, I believe that if the authors address the following topics, they could have a better outcome in further submission. I hope that my feedback can help them.

Response:

Thank you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your specific comments and addressed them as follows:

Specific comments

It has been noted that there are some mistakes in the manuscript, and it is recommended that the English language be assessed by a native speaker.

Response: Thank you for your careful reading. As you suggested, the paper has undergone review and revision by a native English speaker. Several edits and corrections have been implemented throughout the main text to enhance readability.

Title

Authors should focus on their two independent variables, namely internal versus external motor imagery and audiovisual versus visual motor imagery. The title seems to focus only on internal x external.

Response: Per the reviewer's comment, the title of the manuscript has been modified. (Line 6)

Introduction

Line 52: Learning is not related to lifelong processes in the Motor Behavior area. Instead, Motor Development studies investigate motor behavior across the lifespan.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The issue you identified has been corrected. (Line 54).

Line 54: Please use the traditional motor learning concept, "a series of processes associated with practice or experience that led to a relatively permanent change in the capacity to perform motor skills." I suggest reading "Motor Learning and Control" by Schmidt to verify why the words in the concept are important.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The definition of motor learning in the manuscript has been revised accordingly (Lines 56-57).

Line 57: What exactly does "accelerate learning" mean? Does it refer to acquiring motor skills quickly? Definitely, it is not assessed in motor learning. Maybe enhancing the process is a better alternative.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The phrase "enhancing the process" has been replaced (Line 60).

Line 61: The authors did not have neuroimage data to introduce or discuss neurophysiological mechanisms. Classic motor learning studies provide sufficient evidence and mechanisms at the behavioral level of analysis to support this study.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. Since the present study's underlying logic is based on Ramezanzade et al. (2023) research, which employed a physiological approach, the explanations provided in our research are also grounded in this physiological perspective. Ramezanzade et al. (2023) demonstrated that audiovisual imagery leads to a greater increase in muscle activity amplitude compared to visual imagery alone.

However, your comment is well-taken, and we have endeavored to incorporate a behavioral approach in our explanations within the introduction and discussion sections.

Line 65: Psycho Neuromuscular Theory is not the best option for the mechanisms that could influence motor learning by motor imagery. Please revisit classic books on motor learning (Schmidt, Magill, etc.).

Response: Thank you for your helpful comment. We have added discussions of other relevant theories to address this point. (Lines 69-75)

Line 67: Avoid long paragraphs like this one as they complicate the reader's understanding.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have tried to make the sentence more concise. Line 76.

Line 110: Again, keep the mechanisms at the behavioral level, given that the authors do not have data about neuroexcitability.

Response: As mentioned in our previous response, the underlying logic of our research hypothesis is based on studies that have shown that audiovisual imagery can increase muscle activity amplitude more than visual imagery alone. Consequently, we have employed neurological explanations in the discussion and conclusion sections. However, your opinion is valid, and we have made efforts to incorporate a behavioral approach in our explanations within the introduction and problem statement sections.

Line 121: It is a little confusing as the introduction does not guide the reader to investigate the inclusion of audio in visual imagery from internal and external perspectives. For me, the introduction needs to be rewritten to focus specifically on the gap in the literature regarding internal versus external and audio versus audiovisual imagery. The rationale is not strong enough and needs to be recreated.

Response: Thank you for your careful comment. In line with your suggestion, we have added definitions of internal and external imagery to the introduction. Additionally, we have revised the introduction section thoroughly. Moreover, we have included the research hypotheses at the end of the introduction. (Lines 83-86)

Research Methods

Sample Size Calculation:

The manuscript lacks information on sample size calculation. Authors are encouraged to provide details regarding how the sample size was determined for the study.

The G * power software was used to calculate the sample size for the ANOVA repeated measures test (α = .05; β= .95, group number = 4, number of measurement= 5, effect size = .223) (Pourmorad Kohan, Hatami & Baghaiyan, 2016), one way ANOVA and two way ANOVA (α = .05; β= .85, group number = 4, effect size = .58) (Smith & Holmes, 2004; Marshall & Gibson, 2017). Lines 145-147.

Smith, D., & Holmes, P. (2004). The effect of imagery modality on golf putting performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26(3), 385-395.

Marshall, E. A., & Gibson, A. M. (2017). The effect of an imagery training intervention on self-confidence, anxiety and performance in acrobatic gymnastics–a pilot study. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 12(1), 20160009.

Pour Morad Kohan P, Hatami F, Baghaiyan M. The Effects of Sensory Modalities of Mental Imagery on Learning Lay-up Shot in Basketball. Motor Behavior. 2016; 8(26):173-88.

Line 128: Clarify how each inclusion criterion was assessed. For instance, specify the methods used to confirm that p

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.r003
Decision Letter 1
Kaiser M. Shamim Academic Editor
© 2024 M. Shamim Kaiser
2024
M. Shamim Kaiser
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
10 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-43363R1The Effect of Internal and External Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill: The role of visual and audiovisual imageryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Parimi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 24 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

M. Shamim Kaiser, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

NA

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All of my concerns are addressed by the authors. And therefore, I have no other comments in this stage.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Jalil Moradi

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.r004
Author response to Decision Letter 1
Submission Version2
18 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-43363R1

The Effect of Internal and External Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill: The role of visual and audiovisual imagery

Dear Academic Editor

Dr Shamim Kaiser

I hope you are doing well.

We carefully read the letter of the dear academic editor. Both reviewers have approved the manuscript and there were no comments for revision. In the "view attachment" section, there is a file related to the previous stage of the revising process, and all the things mentioned in the file (related to reviewer 1) have already been done.

If what the academic editor meant by "Major Revision" is to upload the figures through the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, we did this and used this tool to upload the figures when submitting the manuscript.

If there is anything else we need to do besides using PACE tool, please let us know.

At the time of submission, we sent the file of referee corrections related to the previous step and also the manuscript.

Best,

Fateme Parimi

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.r005
Decision Letter 2
Kaiser M. Shamim Academic Editor
© 2024 M. Shamim Kaiser
2024
M. Shamim Kaiser
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version2
13 Aug 2024

The Effect of Internal and External Imagery on Learning Badminton Long Serve Skill: The role of visual and audiovisual imagery

PONE-D-23-43363R2

Dear Dr. Parimi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

M. Shamim Kaiser, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please read the paper very carefully to eliminate typos.

Improve the quality of the figures

Reviewers' comments:

10.1371/journal.pone.0309473.r006
Acceptance letter
Kaiser M. Shamim Academic Editor
© 2024 M. Shamim Kaiser
2024
M. Shamim Kaiser
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
10 Sep 2024

PONE-D-23-43363R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Parimi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. M. Shamim Kaiser

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Magill R , Anderson DI . Motor learning and control: McGraw-Hill Publishing New York; 2010.
2 Lu FJ , Gill DL , Lee Y-C , Chiu Y-H , Liu S , Liu H-Y . Effects of visualized PETTLEP imagery on the basketball 3-point shot: A comparison of internal and external perspectives. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2020;51 :101765.
3 Schuster C , Glässel A , Scheidhauer A , Ettlin T , Butler J . Motor imagery experiences and use: asking patients after stroke where, when, what, why, and how they use imagery: a qualitative investigation. Stroke research and treatment. 2012;2012.
4 Olsson CJ , Jonsson B , Nyberg L . Internal imagery training in active high jumpers. Scandinavian journal of psychology. 2008;49 (2 ):133–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00625.x 18352982
5 Munzert J , Lorey B , Zentgraf K . Cognitive motor processes: the role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain research reviews. 2009;60 (2 ):306–26. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.12.024 19167426
6 Ehrsson HH , Geyer S , Naito E . Imagery of voluntary movement of fingers, toes, and tongue activates corresponding body-part-specific motor representations. Journal of neurophysiology. 2003. doi: 10.1152/jn.01113.2002 14615433
7 Kobelt M , Wirth B , Schuster-Amft C . Muscle Activation During Grasping With and Without Motor Imagery in Healthy Volunteers and Patients After Stroke or With Parkinson’s Disease. Frontiers in psychology. 2018;9 :597. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00597 29740377
8 Vealey R , Greenleaf C . Seeing is Believing: Understanding and Using Imagery in Sport. Williams Dalam JM , Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performace (274–283). California: Mayfield Publishing Company; 2001.
9 Ruffino C , Truong C , Dupont W , Bouguila F , Michel C , Lebon F , et al . Acquisition and consolidation processes following motor imagery practice. Scientific Reports. 2021;11 (1 ):2295. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-81994-y 33504870
10 Parker JK , Lovell GP , Jones MI . An examination of imagery ability and imagery use in skilled golfers. Journal of imagery research in sport and physical activity. 2021;16 (1 ):20210006.
11 Novriansyah N , Irianto DP , Rahmat YN , Nanda FA . Effect of imagery on free-throw shooting in basketball extracurricular. Jurnal keolahragaan. 2019;7 (2 ):155–61.
12 Norouzi E , Norouzi Seyed Hossini R , Afroozeh MS , Vaezmosavi M , Gerber M , Puehse U , et al . Examining the effectiveness of a PETTLEP imagery intervention on the football skill performance of Novice athletes. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity. 2019;14 (1 ):20180010.
13 Pour Morad Kohan P , Hatami F , Baghaiyan M . The Effects of Sensory Modalities of Mental Imagery on Learning Lay-up Shot in Basketball. Motor Behavior. 2016;8 (26 ):173–88.
14 Intons-Peterson MJ . Components of auditory imagery. Auditory imagery: Psychology Press; 2014. p. 45–71.
15 Smith D , Holmes P . The effect of imagery modality on golf putting performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2004;26 (3 ):385–95.
16 Debarnot U , Guillot A . When music tempo affects the temporal congruence between physical practice and motor imagery. Acta psychologica. 2014;149 :40–4. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.02.011 24681309
17 Pizzamiglio L , Aprile T , Spitoni G , Pitzalis S , Bates E , D’Amico S , et al . Separate neural systems for processing action-or non-action-related sounds. Neuroimage. 2005;24 (3 ):852–61. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.025 15652320
18 Weinberg RS , Gould D . Foundations of sport and exercise psychology: Human kinetics; 2023.
19 Calmels C , Holmes P , Berthoumieux C , Singer RN . The development of movement imagery vividness through a structured intervention in softball. Journal of sport of behavior. 2004;27 (4 ):307–22.
20 Hale BD . Imagery perspectives and learning in sports performance. Imagery in sports and physical performance. 1994:75–96.
21 Schaffert N , Mattes K . Effects of acoustic feedback training in elite-standard Para-Rowing. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2015;33 (4 ):411–8. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2014.946438 25105858
22 Ramezanzade H , Abdoli B , Farsi A , Sanjari MA . The effect of sonification modelling on perception and accuracy of performing jump shot basketball. International Journal of Sports Studies. 2014;4 (11 ):1388–92.
23 Brock H , Schmitz G , Baumann J , Effenberg AO . If motion sounds: Movement sonification based on inertial sensor data. Procedia Engineering. 2012;34 :556–61.
24 Effenberg AO . Movement sonification: Effects on perception and action. IEEE multimedia. 2005;12 (2 ):53–9.
25 O’Brien B , Juhas B , Bieńkiewicz M , Buloup F , Bringoux L , Bourdin C . Sonification of golf putting gesture reduces swing movement variability in novices. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2021;92 (3 ):301–10. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2020.1726859 32101511
26 Schmitz G , Bergmann J , Effenberg AO , Krewer C , Hwang T-H , Müller F . Movement sonification in stroke rehabilitation. Frontiers in neurology. 2018;9 :389. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00389 29910768
27 Ramezanzade H. The Role of Motor-Auditory Kinematics in Reproduction and Learning the Spatial Characteristics of the Motion Pattern. Motor Behavior. 2018;10 (33 ):125–48.
28 Effenberg AO , Fehse U , Schmitz G , Krueger B , Mechling H . Movement sonification: effects on motor learning beyond rhythmic adjustments. Frontiers in neuroscience. 2016;10 :219. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2016.00219 27303255
29 Ramezanzade H , Abdoli B , Farsi A , Sanjari MA . The effect of sonification of visual modeling on relative timing: The role in motor learning. Acta Kinesiologica. 2017;11 :17–27.
30 Ramezanzade H , Abdoli B , Farsi A , Sanjari MA . The effect of audiovisual integration on performance accuracy and learning in motor task. Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences. 2015;11 (1 ):1–10.
31 Murgia M , Hohmann T , Galmonte A , Raab M , Agostini T . Recognising one’s own motor actions through sound: the role of temporal factors. Perception. 2012;41 (8 ):976–87. doi: 10.1068/p7227 23362674
32 Effenberg A, Fehse U, Weber A, editors. Movement Sonification: Audiovisual benefits on motor learning. BIO web of conferences; 2011: EDP Sciences.
33 Ramezanzade H , Abdoli B , Farsi AR , Sanjari MA . Perception-to-Action Transfer: The Role of Audiovisual Integration. Motor Behavior. 2016;8 (26 ):35–46.
34 Ramezanzade H , Abdoli B , Farsi A , Sanjari MA . Transfer from action to perception: The effect of motor-perceptual enrichment. Research in Sport Management and Motor Behavior. 2019;9 (18 ):52–70.
35 Castro F , Bryjka PA , Di Pino G , Vuckovic A , Nowicky A , Bishop D . Sonification of combined action observation and motor imagery: Effects on corticospinal excitability. Brain and Cognition. 2021;152 :105768. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105768 34144438
36 Ramezanzade H , Badicu G , Cataldi S , Parimi F , Mohammadzadeh S , Mohamadtaghi M , et al . Sonification of Motor Imagery in the Basketball Jump Shot: Effect on Muscle Activity Amplitude. Applied Sciences. 2023;13 (3 ):1495.
37 Shepard RN , Metzler J . Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science. 1971;171 (3972 ):701–3. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3972.701 5540314
38 Walker BN , Cothran JT . Sonification Sandbox: A graphical toolkit for auditory graphs. 2003.
39 Schmidt RA , Lee TD , Winstein C , Wulf G , Zelaznik HN . Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis: Human kinetics; 2018.
40 Hastings EC , West RL . Goal orientation and self-efficacy in relation to memory in adulthood. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition. 2011;18 (4 ):471–93. doi: 10.1080/13825585.2011.575926 21728891
41 Kahneman D . Attention and effort: Citeseer; 1973.
42 Guadagnoli MA , Lee TD . Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of motor behavior. 2004;36 (2 ):212–24. doi: 10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224 15130871
43 Kantak SS , Winstein CJ . Learning–performance distinction and memory processes for motor skills: A focused review and perspective. Behavioural brain research. 2012;228 (1 ):219–31. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.11.028 22142953
44 Knowlton BJ , Mangels JA , Squire LR . A neostriatal habit learning system in humans. Science. 1996;273 (5280 ):1399–402. doi: 10.1126/science.273.5280.1399 8703077
45 Schmitz G , Mohammadi B , Hammer A , Heldmann M , Samii A , Münte TF , et al . Observation of sonified movements engages a basal ganglia frontocortical network. BMC neuroscience. 2013;14 :1–11.23280045
46 Nanay B. Multimodal mental imagery. Cortex. 2018;105 :125–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2017.07.006 28801065
47 Halpern AR , Zatorre RJ . When that tune runs through your head: a PET investigation of auditory imagery for familiar melodies. Cerebral cortex. 1999;9 (7 ):697–704. doi: 10.1093/cercor/9.7.697 10554992
48 Heremans E , Helsen WF , De Poel HJ , Alaerts K , Meyns P , Feys P . Facilitation of motor imagery through movement-related cueing. Brain Research. 2009;1278 :50–8. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.04.041 19406111
49 Pecenka N , Keller PE . Auditory pitch imagery and its relationship to musical synchronization. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2009;1169 (1 ):282–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04785.x 19673794
50 Keller PE , Appel M . Individual differences, auditory imagery, and the coordination of body movements and sounds in musical ensembles. Music Perception. 2010;28 (1 ):27–46.
51 Lutz RS . Covert muscle excitation is outflow from the central generation of motor imagery. Behavioural brain research. 2003;140 (1–2 ):149–63. doi: 10.1016/s0166-4328(02)00313-3 12644288
52 Decety J , Ingvar DH . Brain structures participating in mental simulation of motor behavior: A neuropsychological interpretation. Acta psychologica. 1990;73 (1 ):13–34. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(90)90056-l 2180254
53 Hall CR , Rodgers WM , Barr KA . The use of imagery by athletes in selected sports. The Sport Psychologist. 1990;4 (1 ):1–10.
54 Harris DV , Robinson WJ . The effects of skill level on EMG activity during internal and external imagery. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1986;8 (2 ):105–11.
55 Rodgers W , Hall C , Buckolz E . The effect of an imagery training program on imagery ability, imagery use, and figure skating performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 1991;3 (2 ):109–25.
56 Spittle M. Preference for imagery perspective, imagery perspective training and task performance: Victoria University of Technology; 2001.
57 McLean N , Richardson A . The role of imagery in perfecting already learned physical skills. Imagery in sports and physical performance. 1994:59–74.
58 Kim J , Singer RN , Tennant L . Visual, auditory and kinesthetic imagery on motor learning. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 1998;34 (4 ):159–74.
59 Féry Y-A , Morizot P . Kinesthetic and visual image in modeling closed motor skills: The example of the tennis serve. Perceptual and motor Skills. 2000;90 (3 ):707–22. doi: 10.2466/pms.2000.90.3.707 10883749
60 Cumming J , Nordin SM , Horton R , Reynolds S . Examining the direction of imagery and self-talk on dart-throwing performance and self efficacy. The Sport Psychologist. 2006;20 (3 ):257–74.
61 Dana A , Gozalzadeh E . Internal and external imagery effects on tennis skills among novices. Perceptual and motor skills. 2017;124 (5 ):1022–43. doi: 10.1177/0031512517719611 28799864
