{"id":172,"date":"2024-01-17T20:10:59","date_gmt":"2024-01-17T19:10:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jpehm.org\/?p=172"},"modified":"2024-01-17T20:15:31","modified_gmt":"2024-01-17T19:15:31","slug":"physical-practice-mental-practice-or-both-a-systematic-review-with-meta-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jpehm.org\/index.php\/2024\/01\/17\/physical-practice-mental-practice-or-both-a-systematic-review-with-meta-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Physical practice, mental practice or both: a systematic review with meta-analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

DOI:<\/strong> https:\/\/doi.org\/10.24310\/jpehm.5.2.2023.17875<\/a><\/p>\n

Introduction: Previous research has reached positive conclusions regarding the effects of mental practice on performance and learning of a motor skill. The purpose of this study was to use the aggregate data meta-analytic approach to assess the impact of physical practice (PP), mental practice (MP), and the combination of both on acquisition, retention, and transfer tests in motor skill performance. Methodology: Twenty-seven studies published up to 2022 were included by searching six databases. Random effects model using the standardized mean difference effect size (ES) was used to pool results. Results: A total of 42 ES, were calculated and separated into pairwise comparisons for acquisition, retention, and transfer phase. In the acquisition phase, it was found that MP was more effective than no practice (ES=0.508; n=25; CI=0.29,0.72), PP was more effective than no practice (ES=1.78; n=15; CI=0.97,2.60), CP was more effective than no practice (ES=1.16; n=12; CI=0.57,1.75), PP was more effective than MP (ES=-1.16; n=23; CI=-1.88,-0.45), PP had similar results as CP (ES=-0.01; n=16; CI=-0.31,0.28), and CP was more effective than MP (ES=0.61; n=12; CI=0.17,1.04). In the retention phase, it was found that MP was more effective than no practice (ES=1.11; n=5; CI=0.44,1.79), PP was more effective than no practice (ES=1.03; n=4; CI=0.08, 1.99), PP was more effective than MP (ES=-1.29; n=9; CI=-3.12,0.54), PP had similar results as CP (ES=0.16; n=8; CI=-0.29,0.63), CP had similar results as MP (ES=-0.06; n=3; CI=-1.22,1.09). In the transfer phase, it was found that MP was more effective than no practice (ES=1.12; n=5; CI=0.01,1.59), PP had similar results as no practice (ES=0.41; n=5; CI=-0.02,0.85), and PP was more effective than MP (ES=0.50; n=6; CI=0.12,0.87). Age, skill level, type of mental practice, total of sessions, and type of skill were considered as possible moderator variables. Conclusions: Mental practice does not replace physical practice, however, under some conditions, physical practice can be complemented with mental practice.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Palabras clave:<\/h3>\n
imaginer\u00eda mental, ejecuci\u00f3n motriz, aprendizaje motor, destreza motriz, desempe\u00f1o motor<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/section>\n
\n

Autores:<\/h3>\n