Mental simulation benefits cognitive tasks more than motor or strength tasks¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? One meta-analysis found the effect of MS on cognitive tasks (M = 1.44) significantly larger than on motor (M = 0.43) or strength (M = 0.20) tasks, and MS effectiveness increases with the cognitive involvement of the task. → Meer 2009

Evidence¶

Meer 2009¶

Meer, J.P. van & Theunissen, N.C.M. (2009). Prospective educational applications of mental simulation: A meta-review. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9097-8

q3 · i? · review · r3

Meta-analytic comparison reported in the reviewed literature: the effect on cognitive tasks (M = 1.44) exceeds motor (M = 0.43) and strength (M = 0.20). A second meta-analysis (Driskell et al. 1994) found "MS was more effective the more a task involved cognitive activities."

"One meta-analysis (Feltz et al., 1983) found results indicating that the effect of MS on cognitive tasks (M = 1.44) is significantly larger than the effect on motor (M = 0.43) or strength (M = 0.20) tasks."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Mental simulation practice improves performance relative to no practice, with reported effect sizes of 0.48 to 0.68 — related
• Novices risk practicing motor skills incorrectly with mental simulation, while experts benefit across task types — related
• Whether a skill is open or closed does not have an established effect on mental simulation effectiveness — related
• Longer retention intervals between pre- and post-test weaken the effect of mental simulation — related