Search

ABSTRACTIntroduction Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) is a non-invasive and inexpensive therapy used to treat Phantom Limb Pain (PLP) by sequentially activating motor networks in such a way that movement and pain are unpaired. The objective of this systematic review was to critically appraise relevant data on the efficacy of GMI and its components for reducing PLP and disability in amputees.Methods We searched 11 electronic databases for controlled trials investigating GMI and its components in amputees with PLP from inception until February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted relevant data. Study-level data were entered using the inverse variance function of the Review Manager 5 and pooled with the random effects model.Results Eleven studies with varying risk of bias were eligible. No eligible study considered left/right judgement tasks in isolation. Studies showed no effect for imagined movements, but positive effects were seen for GMI [weighted mean difference: -21.29 (95%CI: -31.55, -11.02), I2= 0%] and mirror therapy [weighted mean difference: -8.55 (95%CI: -14.74, -2.35, I2= 61%]. A comparison of mirror therapy versus sham showed no difference [weighted mean difference: -4.43 (95%CI: -16.03, 7.16), I2= 51%].Conclusion Our findings suggest that GMI and mirror therapy may be effective for reducing PLP. However, this conclusion was drawn from a limited body of evidence, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Therefore, rigorous, high-quality trials are needed to address the gap in the literature and inform practice.

Abstract: Understanding motor imagery of the hands and feet has led to promising new treatments for neurological and chronic pain disorders. We aimed to extend this line of research to the neck with a view to developing the definitive platform study upon which clinical and experimental studies can be based. In a cross-sectional experiment with a convenience sample, volunteers were shown 40 photographs of a model with their head turned to the left or right. Images were presented in random order and orientation. Participants judged the direction of neck rotation. They also completed a left/right hand judgment task. 1361 pain-free participants volunteered. Mean ± standard deviation response time (RT) for making left/right judgments of neck rotation was 1.621 ± 0.501 s. Median accuracy was 92.5%. RT was related to age, gender, and handedness (p < 0.001). That is, RT increased with age, was greater in females than in males and was greater in left-handers than in right-handers. Accuracy reduced with age (p < 0.001), but was unaffected by gender or handedness. Judgments were more accurate when images showed a neck rotated to the right than when they showed a neck rotated to the left (p < 0.001). The magnitude of image rotation affected both response time and accuracy (p < 0.001). In general, the performance parameters established for left/right limb judgments also apply for left/right neck rotation judgments. The current work establishes the definitive normative values against which clinical and experimental groups can be compared and reveals unpredicted effects of the direction neck rotation and the orientation of the image. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We wanted to find out whether people who suffer from dizziness take longer than people who do not, to perform a motor imagery task that involves implicit whole body rotation. Our prediction was that people in the "dizzy" group would take longer at a left/right neck rotation judgment task but not a left/right hand judgment task, because actually performing the former, but not the latter, would exacerbate their dizziness. Secondly, we predicted that when dizzy participants responded to neck rotation images, responses would be greatest when images were in the upside down orientation; an orientation with greatest dizzyprovoking potential. To test this idea, we used a case-control comparison design. One hundred and eighteen participants who suffered from dizziness and 118 age, gender, arm pain, and neck pain-matched controls took part in the study. Participants undertook two motor imagery tasks; a left/right neck rotation judgment task and a left/right hand judgment task. The tasks were completed using the Recognise program; an online reaction time task program. Images of neck rotation were shown in four different orientations; 0° , 90° , 180° , and 270° . Participants were asked to respond to each "neck" image identifying it as either "right neck rotation" or a "left neck rotation," or for hands, a right or a left hand. Results showed that participants in the "dizzy" group were slower than controls at both tasks (p =0.015), but this was not related to task (p =0.498). Similarly, "dizzy" participants were not proportionally worse at images of different orientations (p =0.878). Our findings suggest impaired performance in dizzy people, an impairment that may be confined to motor imagery or may extend more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Graded motor imagery (GMI) is becoming increasingly used in the treatment of chronic pain conditions. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize all evidence concerning the effects of GMI and its constituent components on chronic pain. Systematic searches were conducted in 10 electronic databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of GMI, left/right judgment training, motor imagery, and mirror therapy used as a treatment for chronic pain were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Six RCTs met our inclusion criteria, and the methodological quality was generally low. No effect was seen for left/right judgment training, and conflicting results were found for motor imagery used as stand-alone techniques, but positive effects were observed for both mirror therapy and GMI. A meta-analysis of GMI versus usual physiotherapy care favored GMI in reducing pain (2 studies, n = 63; effect size, 1.06 [95% confidence interval, .41, 1.71]; heterogeneity, I2 = 15%). Our results suggest that GMI and mirror therapy alone may be effective, although this conclusion is based on limited evidence. Further rigorous studies are needed to investigate the effects of GMI and its components on a wider chronic pain population. Perspective: This systematic review synthesizes the evidence for GMI and its constituent components on chronic pain. This review may assist clinicians in making evidence-based decisions on managing patients with chronic pain conditions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]