Mental Imagery Rehearsal

ABSTRACT: Terms such as imagery, visualization, mental practice, and mental rehearsal have been used interchangeably among researchers, sport psychology consultants, coaches and athletes to describe a powerful mental training technique (Taylor & Wilson, 2005). Mental imagery researchers especially in the area of sports psychology are evolving better ways toward helping athletes to enhance their performance. One of such areas of scientific research at seems to have gained ground among scholars is the mental imagery rehearsal. There is therefore every reason to explore how this psychological skill works in sports toward enhancing athletic performance. This paper is posed to answer the question of what mental imagery rehearsal is all about, as

(1999) proposed a four-component model that sought to describe how varying types of motor imagery (MI) has the potential to impact cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. Researchers examined the use of imagery in sporting situations, and examined the use of motor imagery during training in preparation for a competitive event, immediately prior to, and during competition, as well as during rehabilitation. The imagery types highlighted in this model are very similar to those of the model by Paivio (1985) and Hall, Mack, and Paivio (1998), (i.e. Cognitive General, Cognitive Specific, Motivational General-Arousal, Motivational General-Mastery and Motivational Specific). Based on Martin et al. (1999), the examination of studies that have assessed the effects of motor imagery in sport, three outcomes have been reported. Motor imagery in sport was most frequently used for facilitating skill and/or strategy learning and performance, modifying cognitions associated with self-efficacy, self-confidence, effort and/or motivation, factors associated with regulating arousal and competitive anxiety. Additionally, individuals’ ability to generate accurate mental images has an impact on performance (Martin et al., 1999). When developing the applied model, Martin et al. (1999) stated that they purposely attempted to reduce the numerous imagery-related variables to the smallest possible theoretically significant factors. As a result, many variables (e.g. imagery perspective, positive/negative imagery, and/or number of sessions) are pertinent to the model, even though they were excluded from the conceptual framework. The model has been supported by studies that have provided evidence that this model was a reliable guideline framework for imagery interventions, highlighting several variables for athletes’ use of imagery (Boyd & Munroe, 2003; Mamassis & Doganis, 2004; Munroe-Chandler & Hall,