Extended Abstract
Background and Purpose
Motor imagery (MI), defined as the mental simulation of a movement without physical execution, has garnered significant attention within sports sciences, performance psychology, and motor rehabilitation. MI activates neural pathways overlapping those engaged during actual movement, stimulating neuromuscular circuits to enhance motor skill acquisition, precision, and performance efficiency. In complex sports like football, MI is particularly valuable for mastering skills such as dribbling, which demand coordinated speed, accuracy, ball control, and rapid decision-making.
Recent advances have led to dynamic motor imagery (dMI), a refined technique combining limited physical movement with mental imagery to more closely emulate real movement experiences. Unlike traditional static motor imagery (sMI), which relies solely on cognitive rehearsal, dMI engages sensory–motor processes concurrently, activating neural networks responsible for motor coordination, timing, and control. This dual engagement improves the vividness and clarity of mental representations, strengthens cognitive–motor coupling, and promotes long-term motor skill encoding. Though preliminary research has documented dMI’s efficacy in domains like skiing, gymnastics, and rehabilitation, its impact on sport-specific skills such as football dribbling is less well established.
Given the limitations of physical practice—e.g., fatigue, spatial constraints, injury risk—and the shortcomings of static imagery in capturing temporal dynamics, investigating dMI’s effectiveness as a hybrid training modality is timely. This study aimed to compare the effects of dMI, sMI, and physical practice on three critical facets of football dribbling skill: actual performance, temporal congruence between imagery and execution, and skill retention. It hypothesized that dMI’s integrated activation of cognitive, sensory–motor, and perceptual processes would yield superior outcomes versus sMI and physical practice alone.
Methods
A quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test design with independent groups and retention testing was employed. Participants were 45 right-footed male amateur football players aged 18–20 years (mean = 19.7, SD = 0.7), each with a minimum of six years’ experience and no injuries or musculoskeletal issues, verified by a corrective movement specialist. Mental imagery ability was screened using the revised Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ-R).
Participants were randomized into three equal groups: physical practice, sMI, and dMI. The standardized football dribbling test required dribbling through a zigzag course around five cones spaced one meter apart, returning to start. Completion times were recorded, with penalties for cone contact or deviation. Video-recorded qualitative analysis assessed movement initiation, direction change fluidity, readiness, and upper body efficiency by two blinded expert coaches using a 0–10 scale.
Following baseline testing, participants underwent 12 sessions over three weeks, each comprising 10 physical dribbling repetitions and 10 mental imagery trials. The physical practice group performed only actual dribbling. The sMI group executed sMI immediately after each physical trial without movement. The dMI group, after a one-minute rest post-physical trial, performed dMI involving leg movements simulating dribbling initiation while maintaining upper body stillness, enhancing sensorimotor and spatiotemporal representation.
 

Post-tests involved measuring actual dribbling times and self-timed mental imagery durations. A retention test 24 hours later assessed learning durability. No feedback was provided during training or testing to maintain consistency. Data normality and variance homogeneity were confirmed (Shapiro–Wilk, Levene tests). Group comparisons used one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc corrections (SPSS v20, significance at P ≤ 0.05).
Additionally, qualitative aspects of performance were analyzed via video recordings of each trial. Two expert coaches, blinded to group assignments, evaluated performance using a 0–10 Likert scale based on four criteria: movement initiation, direction change, physical readiness, and upper body efficiency. In the pre-test phase, after a general warm-up, all participants performed the dribbling test. No feedback regarding performance outcomes was provided to avoid bias. Over the following three weeks, each group underwent four training sessions per week. Each session included 10 physical dribbling executions and 10 mental imagery trials. The physical practice group performed only actual dribbling trials. The sMI group, after each physical execution, performed static mental imagery of the skill without physical movement. In contrast, the dMI group, after a one-minute relaxation period following the physical execution, stood behind the first cone and performed dynamic mental imagery while mimicking dribbling initiation movements with their legs, keeping the upper body still. This approach focused on enhancing sensorimotor engagement and spatiotemporal representation, as proposed by Guillot et al. (2013). Post-training, participants completed a post-test. Actual execution times were recorded by the experimenter, and mental imagery durations were recorded by participants themselves using a handheld stopwatch, activated at the start and stopped at the end of imagery. A retention test, without prior practice, was administered 24 hours later to assess long-term learning. No feedback or encouragement was provided during the intervention or testing phases to ensure uniform conditions. Finally, data on actual performance time, mental imagery duration, dribbling success, and coaches’ evaluation scores were collected and analyzed. Normality of data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test, and homogeneity of variances was checked using Levene’s test. Group differences were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc tests. All analyses were performed using SPSS version 20, with a significance level set at P ≤ 0.05.
Results
All groups showed significant post-test improvements relative to pre-test. However, dMI participants exhibited markedly greater performance gains, executing the dribble faster and with enhanced precision and control. ANOVA revealed significant group differences post-intervention, with dMI outperforming physical practice in execution time. Though differences between dMI and sMI or sMI and physical practice were not statistically significant, effect trends favored dMI.
Temporal congruence analyses revealed dMI participants’ mental imagery durations closely matched physical execution times, indicating superior cognitive representation and motor memory consolidation. The sMI group exhibited less temporal alignment.
 
Table 1: Ben Ferroni test results for pairwise comparison of dribbling post-test scores





groups


difference in group means


Standard error of the standard deviation


p




 
physical practice & static motor imagery


 
0/89
 


 
0.45


 
0/16




 
physical practice & static motor imagery


 
1/86
 


 
0/45
 


 
0/001




 
dynamic motor imagery
 


 
0/98


 
0/45


 
0/11





In the retention test conducted 24 hours after the conclusion of the training phase, significant group differences were again observed. The dMI group maintained superior performance, showing a more stable reduction in dribbling time.
Qualitative evaluations corroborated these findings; dMI subjects scored higher in technical components such as movement initiation, agility in directional changes, body control, limb positioning, and inter-segment coordination. These gains likely reflect somatosensory feedback from limited physical movement during imagery, enhancing proprioceptive and spatial awareness.
Overall, results affirm dMI’s superiority in enhancing motor performance, timing accuracy, and skill retention through integrated cognitive and motor activation.
Table 2: Bonferroni test results for pairwise comparison of dribbling retention scores





groups


difference in group means


Standard error of the standard deviation


p




 
physical practice & static motor imagery


 
1.36


 
0.55


 
0.053




 
physical practice & static motor imagery


 
2/32


 
0/55


 
0/001




dynamic motor imagery


0/96


0/55


0/27





These results indicated that participants who engaged in dMI not only executed the dribbling task more quickly but also retained the technical quality of their performance more effectively. Another key finding concerned the temporal congruence between mental imagery and actual execution. In the dMI group, the duration of mental imagery closely matched the time of real performance, indicating higher accuracy in cognitive representation and better consolidation of the skill’s temporal algorithm in motor memory. This temporal alignment suggests that dMI participants were able to synchronize their mental imagery with the rhythm, speed, and sequence of actual performance. In contrast, the sMI group showed greater discrepancies and inconsistencies in this regard. In addition to timing measures, qualitative data collected through video analysis by two expert coaches revealed that the dMI group received higher scores across technical performance components—including movement initiation, agility during direction changes, body control, limb positioning, and coordination between lower and upper body movements. These findings suggest that dMI participants not only performed faster but also executed the skill with greater technical proficiency. Overall, the results indicate that dynamic motor imagery (dMI) has a significantly more positive effect than static imagery (sMI) and physical practice alone on performance enhancement, temporal accuracy, and technical quality in football dribbling. This advantage was also sustained in the retention test, indicating that learning in the dMI group was more durable. The findings support the idea that combining mental imagery with limited physical movement plays a critical role in fostering sensorimotor integration and facilitating the storage and retrieval of motor skills in long-term memory.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that dynamic motor imagery is a highly effective, advanced method to improve learning, execution, and temporal precision of complex motor skills like football dribbling. The dMI group consistently outperformed sMI and physical practice groups across execution speed, imagery timing, technical quality, and retention stability.
The findings align with cognitive-motor frameworks asserting that combined mental and physical rehearsal activates overlapping brain regions (motor cortex, cerebellum, basal ganglia), strengthening motor representations and predictions. Producing multisensory encoding via limited movement enhances imagery vividness and motor learning effectiveness.
Practically, dMI offers a valuable tool for athletes facing constraints such as injury, fatigue, or limited training space. Its accessibility requires minimal equipment and can be applied by coaches, psychologists, or athletes independently. Beyond performance, dMI may boost motivation and immersion.
However, careful adaptation is necessary for populations with cognitive or motor limitations. Future research should clarify neurophysiological mechanisms, long-term effects, and efficacy across sports, ages, and skill levels. Developing standardized protocols will facilitate dMI’s application in real-world settings.
 
Article Message
Dynamic motor imagery, by integrating subtle physical movements with mental rehearsal, significantly enhances motor skill acquisition, technical performance, and temporal accuracy beyond static imagery or physical practice alone. dMI represents an innovative, practical training approach that can complement traditional methods, particularly when physical execution is constrained.
Ethical Considerations
The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee. Participants provided informed consent and were informed of the study’s objectives. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained.
Authors’ Contributions
Both authors contributed equally to conceptualization. The first author led data collection and manuscript drafting. The second author supervised data analysis, critically reviewed, and managed the project. Both approved the final manuscript.
Data Collection: The first author was responsible for collecting the data with support from the second author.
Data Analysis: Both authors collaborated in the analysis and interpretation of the data.
Manuscript Writing: The initial draft of the manuscript was prepared by the first author.
Review and Editing: The second author reviewed and revised the manuscript critically for intellectual content.
Responsible for funding: This study was conducted without external funding; both authors managed resources internally.
Literature Review: The first author conducted the literature review with input and suggestions from the second author.
Project Manager: The second author supervised the project and coordinated all research stages.
Any other Contributions: Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript and accept full responsibility for its content.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully thank the participating athletes for their dedication to the study