Home > Journals > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine > Past Issues > Articles online first > European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2021 Jun 09

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

 

European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2021 Jun 09

DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.21.06893-3

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Motor effects of movement representation techniques and crosseducation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ferran CUENCA-MARTÍNEZ 1, 2, Santiago ANGULO-DÍAZ-PARREÑO 2, 3, Xosé FEIJÓO-RUBIO 1, Marta M. FERNÁNDEZ-SOLÍS 1, José V. LEÓN-HERNÁNDEZ 1, 2, Roy LA TOUCHE 1, 2, 4 , Luis SUSO-MARTÍ 2, 5

1 Departamento de Fisioterapia, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 2 Motion in Brains Research Group, Institute of Neuroscience and Sciences of the Movement (INCIMOV), Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; 3 Facultad de Medicina, Universidad CEU San Pablo, Madrid, Spain; 4 Instituto de Neurociencia y Dolor Craneofacial (INDCRAN), Madrid, Spain; 5 Department of Physiotherapy, Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera, CEU Universities, Valencia, Spain



INTRODUCTION: The objective was to assess the impact of movement representation techniques (MRT) through motor imagery (MI), action observation (AO) and visual mirror feedback (VMF) and cross-education training (CE) on strength, range of motion (ROM), speed, functional state and balance during experimental immobilisation processes in healthy individuals, in patients with injuries that did not require surgery and in those with surgical processes that did or did not require immobilisation.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Google Scholar were searched. 13 meta-analyses were conducted.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Regarding the immobilised participants, in the healthy individuals, MI showed significant results regarding maintenance of strength and ROM, with low-quality evidence. Regarding the process with no immobilisation, VMF and MI techniques showed significant changes in maintaining ROM in patients with injury without surgery, with very low-quality evidence. Results had shown that MI demonstrated significantly higher maintenance of strength and speed in patients undergoing surgery, with low-quality evidence. No significant results were found in ROM. Low-quality evidence showed better results in AO plus usual care compared with usual treatment in isolation with respect to maintenance of functional state and balance. CE training demonstrated maintenance of strength in patients undergoing surgery, with moderate evidence; however, not in healthy experimentally immobilised individuals. VMF did not show significant results in maintaining ROM after surgery without immobilisation, nor did MI in maintaining strength after surgery and immobilisation.
CONCLUSIONS: MRT and CE training have been shown to have a significant impact on the improvement of various motor variables and on physical maintenance in general.


KEY WORDS: Action observation; Cross education; Limb immobilisation; Motor imagery; Movement representation techniques

top of page