Dear Richard,

(1) I certainly do not agree with your first proposition, namely that “the acquisition of kinaesthetic (sensorimotor) imagery apparently ensues automatically as the mere consequence of repeated movement-making, without requiring any attention to the qualities of proprioceptive feedback entailed thereby”.

From having experienced several decades of training in the martial arts myself, I’d conclude that it generally takes considerable attentional effort to become aware of (and later on, to operate on) those kinesthetic features of a specific motor skill which carry important information for appropriate body coordination and/or tactical purposes .This holds especially true when body parts are involved, that are not (or to a much lesser amount) innervated by the pyramidal system, like e.g. certain muscle groups in the trunk. This view has also been repeatedly corroborated with focused "kinesthetic  training" measures our research group set up with members (silver medal winners) of the German Olympic wrestlers’ team during the early 1990ies in concordance with the at that time federal coach for wrestling in Germany, Heinz Ostermann.

(2) As for your second proposition, stating that “kinaesthetic imagery typically fails to evoke any specific visual or auditory imagery”, I’d suggest a closer look at the abundant literature on motor imagery and motor action observation (I have one exemplary paper on this subject attached to my answer). Here it is assumed that imagery modalities are linked closely and cannot be separated in absolute terms. Imagery research has demonstrated strikingly that visual imagery and perception (Farah, 1984; Kosslyn, 1994) as well as motor imagery and motor execution (Jeannerod, 1994, 2001) share similar neural representations.

Dynamic images of the motor act  focus typically on kinesthetic or visual information (Annett, 1995). In the latter, a distinction is also made between first-person and third-person perspectives. Participants are able to distinguish both processes, kinesthetic and visual, and also imagine features from other modalities such as acoustic input. However, that does not imply that they occur only in one sensory modality isolated from the others. In the sports domain, athletes often use more than one modality when reporting their images. Slalom skiers might report not only visual and kinesthetic images but also acoustic representations of the movement rhythm reflecting the dynamic onset of the grip of the ski. Similarly Karatekas often times "hear" the specific sounds made bay their karate-gi when imaging certain blocks or punches. And experienced musicians might report acoustic, tactile, and kinesthetic information from their images. Indeed, many people can switch between modalities either voluntarily or when obliged by task instructions.

Kinesthetic sensations are not exclusive to motor imagery; they may also occur when imaging another person's movement. This is supported by findings from studies revealing activations of somatosensory areas during movement observation as well (Zentgraf et al., 2005). Motor imagery may be based on kinesthetic and visual imagery from a first-person perspective. Although the third-person perspective on the own person is not part of motor imagery, participants find it quite easy to generate. However, it does not produce the feeling as if the participant is actually performing the movement at that very moment in time. Visual imagery focuses on external aspects with special reference to the relation of body and environment, whereas motor imagery focuses on internal states of movement dynamics and force production. These differences can explain why motor imagery specifically activates motor areas. Attention is drawn to own movements and therefore to the agency of actions.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Klaus Blischke

The continuum of sensory neural motor systems can function passively or actively. A person is constantly engaged in passive reception of a flood of sensory input; what is attended to is a matter of choice or prioritized for attention by the systems themselves. People develop preferred pathways for processing information probably based on how well it works for them. All sensory input is integrated into memory and when accessed via one sense other senses are recalled. The smell of burnt toast may bring back a memory from childhood walking up a sidewalk and all the other sensory input at the time. I am fascinated by Klaus Blishke inclusion of sports and musical performance. I taught a martial art for 30 years and actively attended to mirror neuron input for learning the art and for fighting. I taught students to practice in their imagination during meditation when actual physical practice was impractical. I based this method on an Olympic high jumper who did the same before his actually attempts. It worked quite well.

Dear Klaus and Stephen,

Many thanks for your insightful answers. I have to confess needing to apologize for a misleading lack of precision at the very opening of my question, concerning "the majority of persons" , for whom the observations of my question particularly apply. More explicitly stated I am referring to the majority of persons drawn at random from the general population, who, in their normal course of engaging in purposeful activities,  tend not  to habitually make deliberate reference to any kind of mental imagery for preparing their physical actions. My observations, then, are not validly applicable to persons not countable within that majority - i.e., persons with deliberately cultivated, activity-specific imagery skills (e.g. martial arts performers, professional musicians), untrained persons receiving specific imagery-relating instructions under controlled experimental conditions, and persons with a natural predisposition to refer to imagery habitually.  (My assertion regarding the majority is founded, among other sources, upon my own experience of  training novice and less-expert musicians and upon casual questioning of others as to whether they routinely refer to imagery).

From my own standpoint and experience as a (retired but still practising) professional pianist, I am thoroughly dependent upon fine-grained auditory imagery as a basis for efficient practising and accurate, fluent finished performance, as well as the need for particular multi-modal combinations for negotiating specific difficulties; and, not being naturally gifted at acquiring imagery, a great proportion of my practice-time is taken up with cultivating it deliberately and experimenting with possible combinations. As a piano-teacher and coach I am also profoundly aware of the experienced and witnessable benefits of training learners in imagery skills of the kinds I use.  Hence I would wholeheartedly acknowledge the potential for cultivating sophisticated imagery of the kinds you describe in relation to martial arts and sports, and would certainly not exclude the majority of the general population as regards their capacity for cultivating it under guidance of an expert instructor.

Given my own experience, likewise  i have no grounds to question any of the experimentally derivied observations noted in Munzert et al (2009), many of  which I am already well-acquainted with through my research. Singling out its mention that visual imagery and visual perception, and motor imagery and motor execution (and, likewise, auditory imagery and auditory perception) share similar neural representations, I have long accepted that as axiomatic for understanding the crucial general function of imagery in controlling both closed-loop and open-loop modes of motor execution, and more generally, as a vital piece of the jigsaw as regards understanding functional/ informational relationships between different hierarchical levels of representation in the brain's overall control-architecture.

While endorsing all of the above, I should however mention that, for me, despite long years of engagement, neither cultivating nor deliberately recalling auditory or visual imagery is an effortless task, and all but impossible should I be overly tired. In that circumstance, as well as when I am in the first stage of learning an unfamiliar composition, I observe the same observations that my question refers to as regards the majority of the general population.

Any comments, please, as to that?

Kind regards!

Postscript: I have inserted an addendum to my question, concerning my intended meaning of  "the majority of persons"