https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4644-3758
![Sample our Sports and Leisure journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5949/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Sports-Leisure.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of motor imagery (MI) and action observation (AO) combined with a motor control exercises program for the lumbopelvic region. Method: Forty-five asymptomatic individuals were randomized into three groups: MI (n = 15), AO (n = 15) or control group (CG) (n = 15). The outcome measures included lumbopelvic motor control measured with a stabilizer pressure biofeedback, trunk muscle strength using a dynamometer and the perceived fatigue using a visual analogue scale. Participants were assessed at pre-intervention, at first week of intervention (mid) and post-intervention. Results: Regarding lumbopelvic motor control, we observed significant within-group differences between pre- and the mid and post-intervention assessment in AO group (p < .001, d > 0.80). MI and CG groups showed significant differences between pre- and post-intervention assessment (p < .05, d > 0.80). Regarding the direct comparison in the ΔMid-Pre differences between groups, only the AO group was superior to the CG with a large effect size (d > 0.80). Regarding trunk muscle strength, significant within-group differences between pre- and post-intervention assessments were observed in AO (p < .001, d = —1.25) and MI (p < .05, d = —1.00) groups. In relation to the perceived fatigue, statistically significant within-group differences were found in all groups (p < .05, d > 0.60). Conclusion: AO training caused faster changes in lumbopelvic motor control compared with the CG group. The AO strategy could be used as a guideline for teaching lumbopelvic motor control exercises.
Acknowledgments
We thank the Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios (CSEU) La Salle for making this study possible, as well as all the participants in the study.